Jury Deliberations in Dunn's Trial Reveal the Emotional Toll of a Politically Charged Case
A federal jury acquitted Sean Dunn, the man who threw a "submarine-style sandwich" at a Customs and Border Protection officer in Washington, D.C., last month. The case, which was only a misdemeanor, drew a large crowd to the courtroom and sparked intense debate about resistance against President Trump's policing crackdown.
During deliberations, jurors expressed frustration with the ease of the trial, stating that they expected it to be over within an hour. However, the case took roughly seven hours to resolve, with two jurors expressing concerns that a not guilty verdict would send a message that it's sometimes acceptable to throw things at federal agents.
"I thought we'd be out of there quickly," said one juror. "This case had no 'grounding.' He threw a sandwich at the agent because he knew it wouldn't hurt. A reasonable person wouldn't think a sandwich is a weapon."
The jurors also discussed the issue of "criminal intent," debating whether prosecutors had met their burden to prove that Dunn's actions constituted a crime.
"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?" another juror explained.
Despite the relatively lighthearted nature of the incident, the jurors acknowledged that the trial was emotionally charged. One juror noted that witnesses and attorneys in the courtroom appeared to be struggling to keep a straight face during testimony.
"I mean, it was a thrown sandwich," she said.
The jurors' experience highlights the challenges of presiding over high-profile cases with strong emotions attached to them. In this case, the notoriety of Dunn's actions and the political tensions surrounding the Trump administration's deployment of federal agents on the streets in D.C. added an extra layer of stress to the proceedings.
As one juror revealed, she was surprised to be assigned to the case after hearing about the prior rejection by a grand jury of Sean Dunn's felony case. "We were very scared and nervous about what this meant for us," she said. "The prospect of being publicly identified and facing threats or harassment weighed heavily on us."
In the end, the jurors' deliberations proved that even in cases with seemingly minor charges, there can be a significant emotional toll for those involved.
A federal jury acquitted Sean Dunn, the man who threw a "submarine-style sandwich" at a Customs and Border Protection officer in Washington, D.C., last month. The case, which was only a misdemeanor, drew a large crowd to the courtroom and sparked intense debate about resistance against President Trump's policing crackdown.
During deliberations, jurors expressed frustration with the ease of the trial, stating that they expected it to be over within an hour. However, the case took roughly seven hours to resolve, with two jurors expressing concerns that a not guilty verdict would send a message that it's sometimes acceptable to throw things at federal agents.
"I thought we'd be out of there quickly," said one juror. "This case had no 'grounding.' He threw a sandwich at the agent because he knew it wouldn't hurt. A reasonable person wouldn't think a sandwich is a weapon."
The jurors also discussed the issue of "criminal intent," debating whether prosecutors had met their burden to prove that Dunn's actions constituted a crime.
"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?" another juror explained.
Despite the relatively lighthearted nature of the incident, the jurors acknowledged that the trial was emotionally charged. One juror noted that witnesses and attorneys in the courtroom appeared to be struggling to keep a straight face during testimony.
"I mean, it was a thrown sandwich," she said.
The jurors' experience highlights the challenges of presiding over high-profile cases with strong emotions attached to them. In this case, the notoriety of Dunn's actions and the political tensions surrounding the Trump administration's deployment of federal agents on the streets in D.C. added an extra layer of stress to the proceedings.
As one juror revealed, she was surprised to be assigned to the case after hearing about the prior rejection by a grand jury of Sean Dunn's felony case. "We were very scared and nervous about what this meant for us," she said. "The prospect of being publicly identified and facing threats or harassment weighed heavily on us."
In the end, the jurors' deliberations proved that even in cases with seemingly minor charges, there can be a significant emotional toll for those involved.
the jurors were saying how they thought it would take less than an hour to decide and it ended up taking 7 hours which is just wild 
seven hours to resolve? sandwich doesn't even hurt, what's next? 
. I mean, throwing a sandwich at a CBP officer? That's just crazy talk! 
.
. And what's crazy is how the jurors were worried about the message it would send if Dunn got away scot-free 
.
. Anyway, glad Dunn got acquitted but can we please just stick to normal crimes from now on? 
. i mean, it's just a thrown sandwich, but clearly this case had some major baggage attached to it. the fact that ppl were expecting to be done with the trial in an hour shows u how invested everyone was in getting a verdict. and those juror quotes? lol, "a reasonable person wouldn't think a sandwich is a weapon"... sounds like they're still trying to wrap their heads around what happened 
That just doesn't sit right with me.
I don't think it's cool when ppl throw stuff at agents 
especially not something as harmless as a sub sandwich 
. But I guess it's good that the jury saw thru the drama 
and did what they thought was right 
. The fact that they had to deal with so much emotional stress on top of it tho? 
that's just not fair 
. Can we all just chill out & respect each other for once? 
. I mean, throwing a sandwich at someone? who does that? 
. it's wild how something so lighthearted can turn into a super intense court case 
.
.
it's like he was trying to be ironic or something but honestly who does that? anyway the jury deliberations were pretty revealing about how much stress and pressure they're under when dealing with high-profile cases. i mean 7 hours is a looong time for a trial lol what if they actually had to deal with a real threat instead of just a thrown sandwich 
. I mean, who tries to get away with that kinda behavior? It's like, come on, dude, that's not even a real thing 
. And the jurors were so right when they said it had no grounding 
. A sandwich can't hurt anyone wearing a ballistic vest! 
. Maybe this verdict will spark some much-needed conversation about police brutality and resistance 
. We need more people standing up for themselves and each other 
.
.
The jurors were like "what's going on here?" and they were right, it didn't make sense. And yeah, the politics of it all just made things more complicated. I get why the jury was frustrated too, seven hours is a looong time to be deliberating over something that should've been simple. 
anyway i think the jurors were right to be frustrated that the trial took so long and they had to deal with all the drama...like what even is a submarine sandwich lol? 
... and yeah, sure the cops were wearing ballistic vests, but that doesn't excuse Sean Dunn's actions... like, seriously how hard is it to just walk away from a fight? 
No thank you! It's times like these that make me question how our society is supposed to function when we can't even seem to agree on basic values of respect and empathy towards others 
.
And can we talk about how ridiculous a "submarine-style sandwich" even is? 