• Sean Dunn acquitted of misdemeanor assault after throwing Subway sandwich at ICE agent
  • Former DOJ paralegal became viral symbol of resistance to Trump immigration enforcement
  • Jury deliberated seven hours before returning not guilty verdict Thursday

WASHINGTON, D.C. (TDR) — The man who became a viral meme after flinging a subway sandwich at an ICE agent has been found not guilty by a Washington, D.C. jury following a three-day trial that prosecutors called “the simplest case in the world” but defense attorneys labeled a blatant abuse of power.

Sean Dunn, a former paralegal at the Department of Justice, was acquitted Thursday on one count of misdemeanor assault after jurors deliberated for approximately seven hours over two days. The verdict represents another embarrassing setback for federal prosecutors under the Trump administration.

Viral incident sparked political firestorm

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

According to charging documents, on the evening of Aug. 10, Dunn was seen yelling obscenities at agents with Customs and Border Patrol, objecting to their presence in the city as part of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

“F*** you! You f***ing fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city,” said Dunn, before briefly walking away and then returning to throw a sandwich at one of the agents, hitting him in the body armor over his chest. He attempted to run away but was caught and arrested, admitting to police, “I did it. I threw a sandwich.”

A few days later, Attorney General Pam Bondi denounced the incident as “an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven years as we work to refocus DOJ.” “Not only is he FIRED, he has been charged with a felony,” Bondi declared on social media.

Defense argued protected political speech

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on testimony from Customs and Border Protection Agent Gregory Lairmore, who said the sandwich “exploded” when it struck his ballistic vest. “You could smell the onions and the mustard,” Lairmore testified, adding he could feel the impact through his protective gear.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Are you glad President Trump is building the new WH ballroom?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from The Dupree Report, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

Defense attorney Sabrina Shroff argued the sandwich could not cause bodily harm and questioned why the case was prosecuted at all. “A footlong from Subway could not and certainly did not inflict any bodily harm,” Shroff told jurors. She pointed out that Lairmore’s colleagues later gave him gag gifts including a fake Subway sandwich and a “felony footlong” badge that he displayed on his desk.

“This case is about a sandwich,” Shroff said in closing arguments. “A sandwich that the agent somehow felt through the ballistic armor he was wearing on his chest.” She characterized the sandwich toss as protected First Amendment speech — an exclamation point on Dunn’s protest.

Grand jury previously rejected felony charge

Prosecutors initially sought a felony assault charge against Dunn, but a Washington, D.C. grand jury refused to indict him on the more serious count. The rejection was part of a pattern of pushback against the Justice Department’s prosecution of surge-related criminal cases during Trump’s second term.

The case proceeded to trial on the reduced misdemeanor charge of forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating or interfering with a law enforcement officer. To secure a conviction, prosecutors needed to prove the sandwich toss met the legal definition of “forcibly” and that Dunn assaulted or interfered with the agent’s duties.

Prosecutor Lisa DiLorenzo argued intent mattered more than the weapon used. “Even with a sandwich, you don’t have the right to touch another person,” she said. “This not about the First Amendment — it’s about someone who crossed the line.”

Selective prosecution claims

Defense attorneys filed motions alleging vindictive and selective prosecution, arguing that Dunn was targeted for his political speech. They noted the heavily armed raid on his apartment despite his offer to surrender voluntarily, and the White House posting a “propaganda” video of the arrest with a movie-like soundtrack.

“The federal government has chosen to bring a criminal case over conduct so minor it would be comical — were it not for the unmistakable retaliatory motive behind it,” defense lawyers wrote in court papers.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, initially predicted the case would last no more than two days and called it “the simplest case in the world.” Instead, the trial stretched to three days with extended jury deliberations.

Symbol of resistance to Trump policies

Images of Dunn became a symbol of resistance to the Trump administration in Washington, with murals depicting a man throwing a sandwich appearing on walls and people placing sandwiches in the hands of giant skeletons for Halloween decorations.

The incident occurred during the early days of Trump’s deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops and federal agents to assist with police patrols in the nation’s capital. Dunn confronted the agents outside a club hosting a “Latin Night,” calling them “fascists” and “racists” while chanting “shame.”

After the verdict, Dunn hugged his attorneys and said, “I’m relieved and look forward to moving on with my life.” His attorney Shroff shouted “I’m so happy!” as she left the courtroom.

Pattern of prosecution failures

The acquittal marks the latest setback for prosecutors under U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, who took over the office during Trump’s second term. Several D.C. juries have rejected cases brought by the office in politically charged prosecutions, including another misdemeanor assault case where grand jurors refused to indict three times before trial.

The jury that decided Dunn’s fate reportedly had sandwiches for lunch on Thursday before delivering their verdict, according to sources familiar with the deliberations.

Should federal prosecutors face accountability when grand juries repeatedly reject their charging decisions in politically charged cases?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10