Perhaps not since an Iowa man spent ten days in jail for failing to return library books has there been a more ridiculous prosecution than this one, in which a DC man is facing assault charges for throwing a sandwich at a Customs and Border Patrol agent on August 10.
Sorry—I should say that he is facing assault charges for hitting the agent with the sandwich, which the man proudly admitted doing.
Sean Charles Dunn approached a group of CBP agents who had deployed in front of a club hosting a “Latin Night,” apparently assuming there would be probable cause to detain anyone coming out of such a club on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant, at least if they had brown skin. Dunn reportedly called them “fascists” and “racists,” and chanted “shame” at them, doing this for up to seven minutes before finally flinging a sandwich, striking an agent in the chest. He was apprehended, then released, but later rearrested at his home by a team of armed agents in riot gear. Obviously, someone actually thought about this and made a conscious decision to prosecute someone who had been armed with a sandwich, and to get a video of the “raid” which the White House later posted on its social-media accounts.
The report says Dunn was charged with “assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, and interfering with a federal officer,” which probably means a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). Under the statute, those things have to be done “forcibly.” Probably that is only meant to exclude acts that don’t involve physical contact, like insults, although they have repeatedly and unconstitutionally arrested people for that too. But that adverb might give a sympathetic jury an excuse to find that a sandwich assault against someone in military gear is not all that “forcible.”
Federal prosecutors initially charged Dunn with felony assault, only to have grand jurors, frequently described as being willing to “indict a ham sandwich,” refuse to indict in an actual sandwich case. Undeterred, the Justice Department then charged him with a misdemeanor. That trial began on Monday.
Somehow, this trial lasted almost three days. The undisputed highlight was the testimony of the victim, CBP Agent Gregory Lairmore, who testified the sandwich “exploded” when it struck him, a detonation he insisted he could feel through his bulletproof vest. He “could smell the onions and the mustard,” he testified, presumably tearing up as he tried to relate the terrifying incident and its lingering effects on his life to this very day.
I wish to congratulate the reader who said on social media that Lairmore was undoubtedly suffering from PTSD—”Post-Thrown-Sandwich Disorder”—which I assume I would have come up with eventually but credit where credit is due. Also credit to whoever it was that first described the charges here as “assault with a deli weapon.” I salute you both.
On cross-examination, Lairmore admitted that his colleagues had given him gifts that seemed to make light of the incident, including “a sandwich-shaped plush toy and a patch that said ‘felony footlong.’” Lairmore conceded he had kept the gifts and even put the patch on his lunchbox, though presumably being careful not to cover up any of the “My Little Pony” stickers.
Closing arguments yesterday must also have been amusing. “This is not a case about someone with strong opinions,” argued Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo, although it obviously is. I mean, he wasn’t just trying to discard a sandwich he was finished with and a federal agent got in the way. “It’s about an individual who crossed the line.”
Okay, but let’s be serious, defense attorney Sabrina Shroff responded. “A footlong from Subway could not and certainly did not inflict any bodily harm,” she told the jury. “Throwing a sandwich is not a forcible offense,” she said, emphasis added. And “[i]f someone assaulted you, someone offended you, would you keep mementos of that assault?” she asked. “Of course not.”
The jury deliberated for two hours on Wednesday before adjourning without reaching a verdict. They were back at it this morning, but at the time of writing, still had not reached a decision. My guess is that they are just sticking around for the free lunch, but I guess we’ll see.
What did they have for lunch, you may be asking? Sandwiches.
Some suggested this might be grounds for a mistrial, but I don’t think it favors either side.
UPDATE: The jury acquitted Dunn about two hours after I posted the above. I’m not saying you should interpret this as a green light to throw sandwiches at federal agents, but I’m also not saying you shouldn’t.
<
