Executive Summary
- A federal jury has not yet reached a verdict in the trial of Sean Dunn, who is accused of assaulting a federal agent by throwing a sandwich.
- The prosecution argues the act was a criminal assault, while the defense contends it was a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.
- The jury must decide if the act qualifies as a “forcible” assault or interference under federal law.
- The incident occurred during a protest against the presence of federal officers deployed by the administration of President Donald Trump.
A federal jury in Washington concluded its first day of deliberations without reaching a verdict in the case of Sean Dunn, a man charged with assaulting a federal officer after throwing a submarine sandwich at him during a protest. The jury was sent home and is scheduled to resume deliberations Thursday morning.
Dunn faces charges under U.S. Code 18 Section 111(a), which prohibits the forcible assault, resistance, or interference with a federal officer performing official duties. The central question for the jury is whether Dunn’s act of throwing the sandwich at U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agent Greg Larimer was done “forcibly” and if it constituted an assault, impediment, or interference.
During closing arguments, Dunn’s defense team, which rested its case without calling any witnesses, argued that the sandwich toss was a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. His attorney described the act as an “exclamation point” on his protest and questioned the severity of the impact on the agent, who was wearing a ballistic vest.
Conversely, the prosecution argued that the incident was not about free speech but about a physical act that crossed a legal line. A prosecutor told the jury, “It does not give anyone the right to touch or strike another person even with a sandwich.” Agent Larimer previously testified that the sandwich was thrown so hard it “exploded” against his vest, and he “could smell the onions and mustard.”
The incident gained notoriety after a video went viral, becoming a symbol for some of local resistance to the deployment of federal law enforcement by President Donald Trump’s administration to address crime in the district. Deliberations are scheduled to continue. It is important to note that all individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.