Additional Coverage:
- Jury deliberates in DC sandwich thrower’s misdemeanor assault case (abcnews.go.com)
Subway Sandwich Sparks Federal Misdemeanor Assault Trial: “Sandwich Guy” Case Heads to Jury
Washington, D.C. – After three days of testimony and a surprisingly high-stakes deliberation over a thrown Subway sandwich, the misdemeanor assault case against Sean Charles Dunn, known online as “Sandwich Guy,” is now in the hands of a jury. The defense contends that what the government is painting as a federal prosecution began as a moment of protest.
Dunn, a former Department of Justice staffer, faces a misdemeanor assault charge following an incident in August during a federal law enforcement surge in Washington, D.C. He was initially investigated for felony assault after allegedly throwing a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent, but a grand jury declined to indict him on the more serious charge. A video of Dunn’s arrest quickly went viral at the time.
According to the initial felony complaint, Dunn allegedly approached the officer, shouting expletives and questioning the officers’ presence in the city. After several minutes of confrontation, Dunn reportedly threw the sandwich, striking the officer in the chest.
In her closing arguments, defense attorney Sabrina Shroff immediately set the tone, declaring, “This case, ladies and gentlemen, is about a sandwich… A sandwich that landed intact, still in its Subway wrapping.”
Conversely, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo opened the government’s closing argument by urging jurors to find Dunn guilty. DiLorenzo emphasized that the case was not about strong opinions or immigration, but about Dunn crossing a line when he threw the sandwich at a CBP agent.
Prosecutors argued that Dunn orchestrated a “seven-minute disturbance” with the intent to distract officers from a “high-visibility” operation. They presented a video in which Dunn admitted to officers, “I did it.
I threw a sandwich. I did it to draw them away from where they were.
I succeeded.” The government stressed that intent, not the type of object, was paramount, stating, “Even with a sandwich, you don’t have the right to touch another person.”
U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols repeatedly reminded jurors to base their verdict solely on the evidence presented.
Shroff then skillfully reframed the government’s argument, not by disputing the sandwich, but by challenging its legal significance. She presented photos of the sandwich on the ground and highlighted what the government had not: the agent’s own post-incident mementos. The agent, she revealed, had received a fake Subway sandwich and a “felony footlong” badge from co-workers, both displayed at his workplace.
“If someone assaulted you, if someone offended you, would you keep a memento of that assault?” Shroff questioned.
“Would you stick it on your lunchbox and carry it every day? Of course not.”
Shroff argued that the sandwich caused no injury, was not a foreseeable weapon, and that Dunn’s actions were protected political speech. She likened the incident to “a kid throwing a stuffed toy in the middle of a bedtime temper tantrum.” Dunn had previously waived his right to testify.
After nearly two hours of deliberation, the jury did not reach a verdict on Wednesday. Proceedings are scheduled to resume at 9 a.m. on Thursday.
Read More About This Story:
- Jury deliberates in DC sandwich thrower’s misdemeanor assault case (abcnews.go.com)