Washington (AFP) – A US man charged with using a sandwich to assault a law enforcement officer was acquitted Thursday after a jury decided that charges brought by President Donald Trump's prosecutors were baloney.
The prosecution made a surprise local hero of 37-year-old Sean Dunn, who was protesting Trump's shock takeover of law enforcement in the capital Washington.
He was accused of flinging a "sub-style sandwich" at an armed Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent on August 10 in a busy nightlife district after shouting expletives at the officer.
The officer was part of a huge crackdown ordered by Trump, with multiple agencies and troops deploying in Washington and several other Democratic-run cities, ostensibly to fight what the Republican president says are crime waves and anarchy.
Prosecutors wanted serious felony charges, but a grand jury refused to indict Dunn -- a rare occurrence. A misdemeanor charge was filed and Dunn faced a maximum of one year in prison if convicted.
While prosecutors ultimately proved ham-fisted, Dunn had appeared to be in a serious pickle.
Right after hurling his sandwich he was chased down, then released, only to be arrested in a raid on his home that was publicized by the White House.
As video of the initial altercation went viral, Dunn was quickly dubbed "DC sandwich guy," becoming a symbol of resistance to Trump. Stylized images of him in mid-sandwich-attack appeared on posters, graffiti, T-shirts and even a popular Halloween costume.
Trump's much-touted crime crackdown has seen an increase in arrests and indictments, but US media analysis of the data shows much of that has come from pursuing minor offenses in court.
The top Trump-appointed prosecutor for Washington, Jeanine Pirro, has pursued maximum penalties for all arrests since taking office, including in the Dunn case.
Dunn was a paralegal at the Justice Department at the time of the altercation and was fired from his position.
On Monday, as proceedings opened, Judge Carl J. Nichols noted that he expected the trial to be a short one as "this is the simplest case in the world."
Dunn's defense did not dispute that he threw the sandwich at the officer, instead arguing that his action did not constitute an offense, and that the charges against him were a "blatant abuse of power."
Much of the case centered on the definition of key terms, including whether the throwing of a soft object constitutes an act that is "forcible," and whether Dunn's action impeded the officer in the conduct of their duties.
On the first day of court proceedings, the defendant, dressed in a black-and-white patterned sweater, appeared subdued as his defense team engaged in feverish consultation.
Dunn's defense has contended that he was being selectively prosecuted due to his political views, having called the federal officers "fascists" before he threw the sandwich.
Nothing gets me ready to oppose fascism like some jury nullification in the morning. Should be part of every complete breakfast.
I'm thinking that's exactly what happened.