Sean Dunn appeared in court on Wednesday for the final day of trial for throwing a sandwich at a federal agent — and his lawyers said even the victim considered the crime a joke.
Dunn was berating Border Patrol and ICE officials standing on a Washington, D.C. street corner when he chucked his foot-long sandwich at the agent, according to charges. He then ran off as federal agents took chase.
In his closing arguments, Dunn's lawyer, Sabrina Shroff, made the case that claiming assault is exaggerated. Customs and Border Protection agent Gregory Lairmore has spent the subsequent weeks laughing and joking about the matter with colleagues, she pointed out.
“Would a man genuinely injured, genuinely offended by having a sandwich thrown at him proudly, happily, joyfully” keep a plush sandwich on his shelf and a “Felony Footlong patch on — yes! — his lunchbox?" Shroff asked the jury, Lawfare Media's Molly Roberts relayed from the trial.
She continued, noting that at the same time the Justice Department prosecutes the case “in some purported effort to keep law enforcement safe and free from food fights,” CBP employees “are joking about it."
An assault requires a “reasonable fear of immediate bodily harm,” but in the case of Lairmore, the lawyer said that it doesn't exist given he was wearing a long-sleeve shirt, long pants, boots, gloves and a ballistic vest that is created to “keep you safe from military rifle fire,” and so is “definitely going to keep you safe from a sandwich.”
The DOJ also claimed at one point that Dunn's actions impeded or interfered with protecting Washington. Shroff said that it couldn't be possible given that the “high-visibility crime patrol and prevention” drew two dozen officers to the scene of the sandwich-throwing.
"Your gut should be telling you, throwing a sandwich is not a forcible offense," she said.
When the DOJ delivered its rebuttal, its lawyer evidently annoyed the judge because it left out most of the definition of "forcibly."
“It has, like, 10 more words. Usually, we try to, you know, tell the jury all of the words,” the judge said.
The prosecutors went on to allege that the case "isn’t just a sandwich” assault, but there was a verbal assault. While protesters have First Amendment rights, the DOJ said that Dunn's “screaming,” “cussing” and attempting to instigate were a key part of the assault.
That's when the defense objected.
“I guess we’re just going to interrupt both sides. A lot," said the judge.