Last month a brief federal misdemeanor trial over a man who hurled a “submarine-style” sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer drew a full courtroom and a crowded overflow room in downtown Washington, D.C. The 12 jurors said they did not realize how much attention their verdict would attract.
Many in the room treated parts of the testimony as almost farcical, and several jurors expected a very short deliberation. Some courtroom participants struggled to keep straight faces and at times laughed during testimony; one juror said it seemed like an “open and closed” matter. The episode had become widely publicized and was treated by some as a symbol of resistance to federal policing and National Guard deployments in the capital.
After roughly seven hours of deliberation the jury returned a not-guilty verdict. This followed an earlier grand jury decision that declined to indict on a felony charge. The defendant, Sean Dunn, was later fired from his job at the Justice Department after the incident.
Three jurors spoke with CBS News under a court order that barred publication of their names. They described an initial 10-2 split: most jurors concluded the conduct did not warrant criminal punishment or that prosecutors had not proven the necessary criminal intent. The two holdouts worried a not-guilty verdict might send the wrong message about throwing objects at federal agents.
Deliberations focused on intent and the likelihood of harm. Jurors debated what prosecutors had to prove and whether a sandwich could reasonably be considered a weapon, especially against an officer wearing a ballistic vest. Several jurors said the majority viewed the act as unlikely to cause injury and therefore not criminal in this context.
Jurors credited a calm, patient foreperson with organizing discussion so deliberations stayed productive. One juror noted that prior publicity meant many on the panel were already familiar with headlines and the viral video from August.
Although the charge was a misdemeanor with no lengthy prison term, jurors described unusual tension in the courtroom, partly driven by the case’s notoriety and political overtones. Several said they feared being publicly identified and targeted with threats or harassment. One juror recalled the defendant appearing sad and desperate while sitting at the defense table.
Despite moments of laughter in the gallery, the panel ultimately weighed intent, context, and the limited danger posed by the thrown sandwich before acquitting.