WASHINGTON — Jurors showed no appetite for the Justice Department's case against "sandwich guy," the D.C. resident who chucked a Subway sandwich at the chest of a federal officer, finding him not guilty Thursday after several hours of deliberations.
The jury — which feasted on sandwiches for lunch Thursday, according to a person familiar with jury lunches — deliberated the charges for several hours Wednesday and Thursday before delivering the verdict.
The resident, Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department paralegal, faced a single misdemeanor count after a federal grand jury rejected more serious charges over the encounter, which took place in the nightlife area of U Street in August.
Border Patrol Officer Greg Lairmore received two "gag gifts" related to the incident — a plush sandwich and a patch featuring a cartoon of Dunn throwing the sandwich with the words “Felony Footlong” — which the defense team argued showed this was not a serious event in his life.
Lairmore had testified that the sandwich “exploded all over” his chest and claimed he could smell mustard and onions. But a photo showed that the sandwich was still in its wrapper on the ground after it hit Lairmore in his bulletproof vest.
Images of Dunn became a symbol of resistance to the Trump administration in Washington, with murals popping up on walls depicting a man throwing a sandwich, and with people placing sandwiches in the hands of giant skeletons for Halloween.
Sean Dunn told NBC News it was “heartening” to get so much support from his fellow Washingtonians, but that he’s “not comfortable” with the “hero” narrative. Asked if he thought residents — who lack full representation in Congress — were registering their dissent to the federal takeover of the city in finding him not guilty, he said, “Perhaps.”
Grand jurors in Washington have rejected several cases against defendants that were brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, which under the Trump administration has been run by two Trump loyalists: first Ed Martin and now Jeanine Pirro.
“As always, we accept a jury’s verdict; that is the system within which we function. However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how 'minor'. Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another," Pirro said in a written statement.
In closing arguments, defense attorney Sabrina Shroff argued that a sandwich could not and did not cause harm.
“This case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is about a sandwich,” she said.
