Jurors Reveal the Absurd Reason Why Former DOJ Lawyer Who Threw Sandwich at Federal Officer was Found Not Guilty and Their Reactions During the Trial
Jurors are speaking out about why they acquitted a leftist former DOJ attorney who assaulted a federal officer with a sandwich and their reactions during the trial.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, a man in a salmon-colored t-shirt was caught on video throwing a Subway sandwich at a federal officer in DC over the summer after President Trump deployed the National Guard to patrol the streets. He was later identified as 37-year-old Sean Charles Dunn, a DOJ trial attorney.
A DC grand jury previously refused to indict Dunn on felony charges, so the DOJ downgraded his charges to a misdemeanor and went to trial. However, a DC grand jury ultimately found Dunn not guilty last month.
During the trial, Dunn’s legal team claimed their client threw the sandwich to protest Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., and that the attack was not violent.
Dunn amplified this assertion in a statement following the not guilty verdict.
“I believe that I was protecting the rights of immigrants. And let us not forget that the Great Seal of the United States says, E Pluribus Unum,” Dunn said. “That means, from many, one, every life matters, no matter where you came from, no matter how you got here, no matter how you identify, you have the right to live a life that is free.”
On Monday, Fox News reported that many of these jurors revealed their reactions throughout the trial and their silly reason for exonerating Dunn.
One juror said that many in the courtroom had trouble keeping a “straight face” during the proceedings, with many of them laughing. He added the case had no standing in their view because it was ‘just a sandwich.’
“I mean,” the juror said, “it was a thrown sandwich.”
Another juror added that Dunn supposedly knew that throwing the sandwich would not harm the officer.
“I thought we’d be out of there quickly. This case had no ‘grounding.’ He threw a sandwich at the agent because he knew it wouldn’t hurt,” the second juror stated. “A reasonable person wouldn’t think a sandwich is a weapon.”
“It seemed to me like an open and closed type of thing,” a third juror said. “It was kind of ridiculous.”
What is ridiculous is these jurors’ willful ignorance of the law. Throwing an object at a law enforcement official, even a sandwich, clearly constitutes an assault.
Moreover, there could have been a more harmful object wrapped inside the sandwich bag (such as a metal weight) rather than food. Someone could have been seriously harmed.
These callous reactions by said jurors give a clear signal that it is open season on those trying to safeguard DC residents from far-left violence and violent illegal aliens.
The post Jurors Reveal the Absurd Reason Why Former DOJ Lawyer Who Threw Sandwich at Federal Officer was Found Not Guilty and Their Reactions During the Trial appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.