Listen to the article
Jury Deliberates in Federal Case Against Man Who Threw Sandwich at Border Agent
A federal jury began deliberations Wednesday in an unusual assault case that has become politically charged – a man accused of throwing a Subway sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent during protests against a federal law enforcement surge in Washington, D.C.
Sean Charles Dunn, a former Justice Department employee, faces a misdemeanor charge of assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with a federal officer after the August 10 incident. After approximately two hours of deliberation, jurors adjourned and will resume Thursday.
The case stems from an encounter between Dunn and CBP agents stationed outside a club hosting a “Latin Night.” According to testimony, Dunn approached the officers, calling them “fascists” and “racists” while chanting “shame.” Video evidence captured Dunn throwing his submarine sandwich, which struck CBP Agent Gregory Lairmore on the chest.
“A footlong from Subway could not and certainly did not inflict any bodily harm,” argued defense attorney Sabrina Shroff during closing arguments. “Throwing a sandwich is not a forcible offense.” Shroff questioned why federal prosecutors pursued the case at all.
Prosecutors from U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office countered that Dunn knowingly crossed a legal line. “This is not a case about someone with strong opinions,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo told jurors. “It’s about an individual who crossed the line.”
Lairmore testified that the sandwich “exploded” upon impact, with enough force that he could feel it through his ballistic vest. “You could smell the onions and the mustard,” he recalled. Fellow officers later gave Lairmore lighthearted gifts referencing the incident, including a sandwich-shaped plush toy and a patch reading “felony footlong” – evidence the defense suggested undermined the seriousness of the alleged assault.
Body camera footage captured Dunn’s statements after his arrest: “I did it. I threw a sandwich. I did it to draw them away from where they were. I succeeded.” Though Dunn didn’t testify at trial, jurors heard his explanation that he confronted the agents in response to President Donald Trump’s deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops and federal agents to assist with police patrols in the capital.
The case has drawn attention for its political dimensions and unusual trajectory through the justice system. A grand jury initially refused to indict Dunn on a felony assault charge – a rare rebuke to prosecutors that reflects what observers describe as a pattern of resistance to cases stemming from the Trump administration’s law enforcement surge. Following this setback, Pirro’s office pursued the lesser misdemeanor charge instead.
Further controversy erupted when Dunn was rearrested in what his lawyers described as a raid by armed federal agents in riot gear. The White House subsequently posted what defense attorneys called a “propaganda” video of the raid on its official X account.
After Dunn’s arrest, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced his firing from his position as an international affairs specialist in the Justice Department’s criminal division. In a social media post, Bondi referred to Dunn as “an example of the Deep State,” language that prompted defense attorneys to argue for dismissal based on alleged vindictive and selective prosecution.
The case unfolds against a backdrop of heightened political tensions regarding federal law enforcement. Defense attorneys pointed to a stark contrast in the handling of this case compared to January 6 Capitol riot cases. They noted that many Trump supporters convicted of felonies for assaulting or interfering with police during that incident later received presidential pardons or had charges dismissed by executive order.
As deliberations continue, the case has become emblematic of broader debates about prosecutorial priorities and the politicization of justice in a deeply polarized national environment.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
Throwing food at an officer is never appropriate, even if the agent’s conduct was questionable. I’m curious to see how the jury rules on the assault charges in this politically-charged case.
I agree, the use of force should be proportional. Throwing a sandwich doesn’t seem to warrant an assault charge, but the jury will have to decide based on the full evidence.
Throwing objects at officers is never advisable, even if their actions are controversial. I’m interested to see if the jury finds the defendant’s actions to be legally assaultive or more of a symbolic protest.
Assaulting a federal officer is a serious charge, but a sandwich doesn’t seem like a dangerous weapon. I hope the jury weighs all the facts and context carefully in their deliberations.
This case highlights the tensions between protesters and law enforcement. While the sandwich-throwing may have been impulsive, I’m not sure it rises to the level of assault. We’ll have to see how the jury rules.
Throwing any object at a federal agent is certainly unwise, even if the agent’s conduct was questionable. I’ll be curious to see if the jury finds the defendant guilty of assault.
A sandwich thrown at a federal agent seems like an overreaction, even if the agent’s actions were controversial. I hope the jury weighs the facts carefully and reaches a fair decision.
This seems like a relatively minor incident that’s become politicized. I hope the jury can set aside any partisan biases and focus on the specific facts around the sandwich-throwing incident.
Agreed, the political nature of this case could cloud the jury’s judgment. I’m interested to see if they rule based solely on the evidence or if other factors come into play.