cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/49262051
Customs and Border Patrol agent Gregory Lairmore told the jury the snack “exploded all over him” and he “could smell the onions and mustard” on his uniform.
Neither side disputes that Sean Dunn, 37, did in fact lob obscenities and a deli-style sandwich at officers deployed by President Donald Trump to patrol the nation’s capital in August. But Mr Dunn’s lawyer argues it was not a criminal act.
The incident was captured on video and went viral, making Mr Dunn a symbol of opposition in Washington DC to Trump.
Government prosecutors initially tried to secure felony charges against Mr Dunn, but a grand jury declined to indict him. Prosecutors have instead charged him with a lower-level misdemeanour assault.
Depends on what the jury decides. Did they manage to find 12 people that will consider a sandwich a weapon and completely discount the protest aspect and all current events?
Considering the prosecution doesn’t get to pick the jury, and both sides decided on the jury via voir dire, I doubt it.
That dude is still gonna have to live with all the jokes about him being a little bitch overreacting to a sandwich. His buddies will never let him love that down regardless of the verdict. And that gives me a tiny spark of happiness in these dark times.
They don’t have to. Here are model jury instructions for the charge, which include:
Notably, there’s no requirement that a weapon is used or physical injury is caused. Reading the statute, the fact that there was physical contact elevates it to a felony even without a weapon or injury, but it isn’t charged as a felony here because the grand jury refused to indict.
I hope that the jury finds him not guilty, but if they do it’s jury nullification, not that his actions didn’t technically violate the statute.