Sean Charles Dunn, a resident of Washington, D.C., made a statement by throwing a sandwich at a federal agent, claiming it was an act of protest. The jury is tasked with determining if this action amounts to a federal crime. Assistant U.S. attorney John Parron emphasized to jurors the seriousness of throwing objects at individuals out of anger. Dunn admitted to hurling his sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent outside a nightclub on the evening of Aug. 10.
During the trial’s opening statements, defense attorney Julia Gatto portrayed the sandwich-throwing incident as Dunn’s way of expressing opposition to President Donald Trump’s law enforcement policies. Gatto argued that it was a harmless action following Dunn’s exercise of his right to free speech, asserting his innocence.
The incident gained significant attention after a bystander’s video of the confrontation went viral on social media, transforming Dunn into a symbol of resistance against the federal presence in the city. The defense acknowledged Dunn’s act of throwing the sandwich but criticized the U.S. Attorney for turning a seemingly minor incident into a federal criminal case.
Customs and Border Patrol agent Gregory Lairmore testified that the sandwich struck him forcefully, causing it to burst upon impact with his chest, leaving a distinct smell of onions and mustard. Lairmore recalled Dunn approaching the agents, hurling insults, and chanting disparaging remarks before throwing the sandwich. Despite the agents’ attempts to defuse the situation, Dunn fled after the act but was later apprehended nearby.
Following the incident, Lairmore’s colleagues jokingly gifted him items related to the sandwich-throwing episode, indicating a light-hearted view of the matter. Dunn’s defense team argued that the response from the agents reveals the exaggerated nature of the case, suggesting it was trivialized through humor.
The defense raised concern over Dunn’s subsequent arrest by armed federal agents in riot gear, highlighting what they deemed as an aggressive approach targeting Dunn for his political expression. They called for the dismissal of the case, alleging vindictive prosecution.
The trial, which resumed on Wednesday, will determine Dunn’s fate regarding the alleged assault on a federal officer. The prosecution emphasized that while opinions on Trump’s federal actions vary, Dunn’s actions crossed a legal boundary and must be addressed.
Despite being a former Justice Department employee, Dunn faced termination following his arrest, with authorities referring to him as part of the “Deep State.” The trial’s outcome remains uncertain as Dunn contemplates testifying once the government concludes its case.
Furthermore, the broader context of Trump’s federal intervention in various cities, including the deployment of National Guard troops, underscores the contentious nature of law enforcement policies and the repercussions of dissent against government actions.
