By John Q. Hosedrinker 
AP News reports that Sean Charles Dunn, a former Justice Department employee, was found not guilty of assault after throwing a sandwich at a federal agent during the Trump administration’s law enforcement surge in Washington. The viral video of the incident made Dunn a symbol of resistance. Dunn’s defense argued the sandwich toss was a harmless gesture of protest protected by the First Amendment. Prosecutors faced a setback in the case, mirroring broader pushback against the Justice Department’s handling of surge-related criminal cases.
Read the original article here
Man who threw sandwich at federal agent in Washington is found not guilty of assault charge, and honestly, the sheer absurdity of it all just tickles me. The idea that someone was even charged with assault for, well, chucking a sandwich is inherently comical. It’s the kind of story that makes you briefly question the entire legal system, not in a serious way, but more like a chuckle-inducing “what were they thinking?” sort of way. Praise the jury, because seriously, in this case, a sandwich just doesn’t seem like a weapon.
Man who threw sandwich at federal agent in Washington is found not guilty of assault charge, and it’s clear the defense attorney knew exactly what she was doing. Her closing argument, framing the case as fundamentally about a sandwich, was pure genius. “This case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is about a sandwich,” she said, and that’s it, that’s the whole shebang. You can almost see the jury’s faces as she said it, probably a mixture of bewilderment and amusement. She understood that sometimes, you just have to lean into the ridiculousness of a situation to win.
Man who threw sandwich at federal agent in Washington is found not guilty of assault charge, which leads to the immediate question of whether the sandwich was capable of causing any actual harm. The whole thing seems a bit farcical. The defense obviously nailed it by pointing out that a sandwich, in most circumstances, isn’t going to cause any physical damage. Did it have mustard? Onions? Perhaps it was an “exploding with mustardy, onion goodness” kind of sandwich. But still, a sandwich is just a sandwich.
Man who threw sandwich at federal agent in Washington is found not guilty of assault charge. The details make it even funnier. Apparently, the jury was even served sandwiches for lunch during their deliberations. What better way to consider the charges than while enjoying your own lunchtime sandwich? It’s almost too perfect. You can imagine them looking at their sandwiches, considering the case, and collectively thinking, “Yeah, no. Not a weapon.”
Man who threw sandwich at federal agent in Washington is found not guilty of assault charge, and the whole thing highlights a colossal waste of resources. Think about the time, money, and effort that went into prosecuting this case. It seems like the authorities should have dropped the charges after the grand jury didn’t indict. Surely, there are more pressing matters, maybe something slightly more deserving of the court’s attention.
Man who threw sandwich at federal agent in Washington is found not guilty of assault charge, and you can’t help but feel a little bit of schadenfreude about this one. It’s a victory for common sense, and the kind of outcome that restores a little faith in the system. The agent’s description of his “trauma” likely didn’t help his case either. It just added to the whole comedic feel of the situation.
Man who threw sandwich at federal agent in Washington is found not guilty of assault charge, and the possibilities for puns are endless. “Assault with a deli weapon,” “sandwich throwing should be protected free speech,” “Justice was served…on rye,” “a Sub par result.” The humor is just too easy, and it perfectly encapsulates the overall feeling of the situation. I’m imagining the defense attorney having a field day with all of that.
Man who threw sandwich at federal agent in Washington is found not guilty of assault charge, and it makes you wonder what the threshold is for an object to be considered a weapon. Was it a double meat Cold Cut? Had it been a Dagwood, would that have changed anything? What if it had been a hot dog instead of a sandwich? Where does the line get drawn? It’s a slippery slope.
Man who threw sandwich at federal agent in Washington is found not guilty of assault charge, and the jurors clearly had their own questions too. They even sent a note asking about the definition of “bodily harm” and “injury.” They clearly wanted to get it right, and they ultimately decided that a sandwich did not inflict either.
Man who threw sandwich at federal agent in Washington is found not guilty of assault charge, and I’m honestly glad this outcome came about. It’s the right decision. This verdict serves as a tiny beacon of hope that the legal system can sometimes recognize when something is simply absurd. In this case, the jury saw the humor, the defense attorney played the card, and the sandwich thrower walked free.