A Washington, D.C. man found himself in federal court, not accused of a violent crime in the traditional sense, but for the act of throwing a sandwich. Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department specialist, insists the seemingly bizarre incident was a deliberate act of protest, not an assault.
The charges against Dunn are serious: assaulting, resisting, and interfering with a federal officer. The incident unfolded on August 10th, fueled by Dunn’s opposition to President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard within the city limits. The prosecution argues that regardless of motive, throwing an object at someone is unacceptable.
Dunn’s defense team paints a different picture, characterizing the sandwich toss as a symbolic “exclamation point” – a final expression after exercising his right to free speech. They maintain his actions were harmless and do not warrant criminal charges, asserting his overwhelming innocence.
The moment itself was captured on video, quickly circulating online and turning Dunn into a figurehead for those who also opposed the federal presence in Washington, D.C. Many saw his act as a bold statement against perceived overreach.
The prosecution countered that the act itself was the issue, regardless of political motivations. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Parron argued that there are boundaries to free expression, and Dunn undeniably crossed them. A grand jury initially declined a felony assault charge, leading to the current misdemeanor case.
The government’s first witness, CBP Agent Gregory Lairmore, vividly described the impact of the sandwich. He testified it “exploded” on his chest, the force registering even through his ballistic vest. The lingering scent of onions and mustard filled the air, he recalled.
Lairmore detailed a tense encounter preceding the throw, recounting Dunn’s barrage of profanities and accusations of “fascism” and “racism” directed at the agents. Despite the verbal assault, Lairmore stated he and his colleagues remained professional, respecting Dunn’s right to voice his opinion.
After throwing the sandwich, Dunn reportedly fled the scene, only to be apprehended blocks away. Body camera footage from his arrest revealed Dunn claiming he intentionally drew the agents away from a specific location, believing he had succeeded.
The case hinges on whether the jury views Dunn’s actions as a protected form of protest or a criminal assault. The seemingly simple act of throwing a sandwich has become a focal point in a debate over the limits of free expression and the consequences of political dissent.
