Inside the 'Sandwich' Trial: Jurors Explain Seven-Hour Deliberation That Acquitted Sean Dunn

The brief federal misdemeanor trial of Sean Dunn — who threw a "submarine-style" sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer in downtown Washington, D.C., in August — drew a full courtroom and widespread attention. After roughly seven hours of deliberation, the 12-member jury returned a not guilty verdict.

What Jurors Said About Deliberations

Three jurors who served on the panel spoke with reporters and described a deliberation that began with an early 10-2 split and evolved into detailed debate over criminal intent and the proper reach of federal prosecution.

According to jurors, the majority concluded that tossing a sandwich did not warrant federal charges or that prosecutors had not proven the necessary intent. "I thought we'd be out of there quickly. This case had no 'grounding,'" one juror said. "A reasonable person wouldn't think a sandwich is a weapon."

"We asked each other: If we only look at this case, can someone really do harm to someone wearing a ballistic vest by throwing a sandwich?" a juror recalled.

Points Of Tension

Two holdout jurors expressed concern that an acquittal might send a message that throwing things at federal officers is acceptable. The panel spent considerable time debating what type and degree of criminal intent prosecutors needed to prove.

Jurors also described unusual courtroom dynamics for a misdemeanor trial: visible laughter from some observers, frequent exchanges between lawyers and the judge, and a high level of public attention. Several jurors said they were anxious about being identified publicly and feared potential harassment or threats after the verdict.

Context And Outcome

The incident, captured on video and widely shared, became a touchstone in debates over the Trump administration's use of federal officers and National Guard deployments in the capital. Dunn, who was later fired from his Justice Department job, was acquitted by the jury. Earlier in the year, a grand jury declined to return a felony indictment in the case.

Jurors praised their foreperson as "gentle and patient," crediting that leadership with helping the group communicate effectively and reach a unanimous decision.

This courtroom episode — marked by a mix of levity, legal deliberation and public concern — underscores how even a misdemeanor case can attract national scrutiny when it touches on broader political tensions.