DC ‘sandwich guy’ goes on trial, says prosecution is half-baked

The D.C. man who flung a sandwich at a federal agent in a show of resistance to President Donald Trump’s takeover of local law enforcement went on trial this week, as his lawyers blasted the Justice Department for what they described as excessive and ham-fisted policing.

Attorneys for Sean C. Dunn — the 37-year-old Air Force veteran colloquially known as “Sandwich Guy” after video of the incident went viral on social media — have called the case against him “a blatant abuse of power” that came with “a choreographed, militarized raid on his small apartment” and the threat of jail time.

Julia Gatto, an attorney for Dunn, described the throwing of the sandwich as a “harmless gesture” that did not constitute a forcible assault, which the law requires for a conviction.

“Sean Dunn expressed his opinions,” Gatto said in her opening statement Tuesday. “He expressed them loudly, and he expressed them maybe you think vulgarly, but he expressed his opinions. But words without force are never assault.”

Federal prosecutors said they have an ironclad case amply supported by legal precedents, as well as video of the sandwich-hurling and Dunn’s statement to a police officer the night of the incident: “I did it. I threw a sandwich.”

“No matter who you are, you can’t just go around throwing stuff at people ’cause you’re mad,” prosecutor John Parron said in his opening statement.

“You can’t do it with your neighbor. You can’t do it with federal law enforcement,” he added.

The trial will once again test the limits of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s policy of seeking the maximum penalties for all D.C. arrests. Grand juries in the city’s federal courthouse have declined to indict several people who were accused of assaulting federal officers this year. Judges have criticized Pirro’s office for rushing to charge others with felonies, only to downgrade or dismiss the charges after the defendants spent time in jail.

Last month, a trial jury acquitted a D.C. woman, Sydney L. Reid, of the same misdemeanor charge Dunn is facing: assaulting a federal agent. Reid was rowdily protesting an immigration arrest outside the D.C. jail when a female FBI agent scraped her hand against a wall. Grand jurors refused to indict Reid on three occasions, and the trial jury quickly found her not guilty of misdemeanor assault.

The U.S. attorney’s office initially sought to charge Dunn with felony assault of a federal agent, for which the maximum prison sentence would have been eight years. But grand jurors declined to indict Dunn, and prosecutors downgraded the charge to a misdemeanor, which does not require grand jury approval. Dunn faces a maximum penalty of one year in jail, fines and probation if convicted.

In court filings, prosecutors said Dunn approached a group of federal law enforcement officers on Aug. 10 as they patrolled a popular nightlife area at 14th and U streets NW. An onlooker posted an Instagram video that shows Dunn calling the officers fascists, chanting “shame,” telling them to leave the city and ultimately pelting a Customs and Border Protection agent with a salami sub.

Dunn tried to run away but was arrested that night, released, then rearrested days later at his D.C. apartment in what his attorneys described as a militarized, 20-person operation. The White House publicized the raid in a sleek social media video, and Pirro took to her X account to jab at Dunn.

“He thought it was funny. Well, he doesn’t think it’s funny today because we charged him with a felony,” Pirro said. “So there. Stick your Subway sandwich somewhere else!”

Defense attorneys sought to have the case tossed before trial, arguing that Dunn was being selectively prosecuted because he expressed political views, calling the federal agents deployed as part of Trump’s surge “racists” and “fascists.” Meanwhile, Trump had pardoned almost 1,600 supporters of his who rioted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including “some captured on video hurling explosives, beating officers with baseball bats and riot shields, and spraying chemical irritants,” the defense argued.

“This is, plain and simple, political viewpoint discrimination,” Dunn’s attorneys wrote.

The assistant U.S. attorneys handling Dunn’s case, Parron and Michael DiLorenzo, countered that “holding certain viewpoints does not provide a license to assault federal officers.” Dunn had not produced examples of the Justice Department declining to prosecute any comparable cases, they said.

“The defendant is being prosecuted for the obvious reason that he was recorded throwing a sandwich at a federal officer at point-blank range,” they said in a court submission.

The federal agents were “calm, collected and professional” as Dunn accosted them for several minutes, Parron told the jury. “They weren’t there to bother anyone. They were just there to do their job.”

The CBP agent, Gregory Lairmore, was fully armed, wearing a bulletproof vest, and was with almost 20 other law enforcement officers, according to court records. “The sandwich kind of exploded all over my uniform,” Lairmore testified Tuesday. “It smelled of onions and mustard.”

Defense attorney Sabrina Shroff questioned that testimony during cross-examination, displaying a photo of the sandwich lying on the ground, almost entirely inside its wrapper, after it was hurled.

“In fact that sandwich hasn’t exploded at all,” she said. Lairmore maintained that he had “mustard and condiments on my uniform, and an onion hanging from my radio antenna that night.”

Dunn deployed to Afghanistan for several months from 2010 to 2011 as a member of the Air Force. He worked as a paralegal in the Justice Department at the time of the sandwich-tossing. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on social media that Dunn had been fired over the incident, branding him a “Deep State” saboteur of the administration’s agenda.

Trump declared a crime emergency in the District on Aug. 11, the day after the sandwiching. The emergency declaration expired the following month, but about 2,500 National Guard troops summoned by the president continue to patrol the city. A federal judge has indicated she may rule soon on a legal challenge brought by D.C. officials seeking to end the National Guard deployment.

The trial is expected to conclude by midweek, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols told the jury.