News & Insights

What a Subway Sandwich Can Teach Us About Assault Law in DC and Federal Court

Written by Criminal Defense Attorney Christopher J. Mutimer

Monument Legal is a respected criminal defense firm serving clients in Washington DC, Virginia, and Federal courts. Known for experience, precision, and commitment to justice, our criminal defense attorneys have successfully defended clients in complex cases ranging from misdemeanors to serious felonies. In this article, we break down the now-famous “Felony Footlong” case, where a man was charged with assaulting a federal officer by throwing a Subway sandwich, and explain what it reveals about how assault charges really work in DC and federal court. From the importance of intent to the distinctions between local and federal statutes, this real-world example offers valuable insight into how a strong legal defense can change the outcome of a case.

The “Felony Footlong” Verdict

At Monument Legal, we believe that understanding the law shouldn’t require a law degree. We specialize in making complex legal matters clear and accessible, especially when it comes to criminal defense. And few cases in recent memory illustrate the nuanced world of assault charges quite like the saga of Sean Charles Dunn, better known as “the Subway sandwich thrower,” and his now-infamous encounter with a federal officer.

Picture this: Washington DC, in the sweltering August heat. Federal law enforcement officers are deployed throughout the city, and tensions are undeniably high. Then, a man throws a footlong Subway sandwich—a hoagie, a hero, a submarine, whatever you call your preferred deli delight—at a federal officer. Fast forward to a federal courtroom, and a jury delivers a stunning verdict: Not Guilty.

This wasn’t just a quirky news story; it was a real-life demonstration of how the law defines assault, the critical role of intent, the power of a robust defense, and the stark differences between DC and Federal court systems. As your dedicated criminal defense firm serving Washington DC, Virginia, and Federal courts, Monument Legal is here to unpack this fascinating case and what it means for anyone facing assault charges.

The “Subway Sandwich” Incident: From Street Protest to Federal Courtroom

The story of Sean Charles Dunn began on a charged night when he encountered federal officers near a gay nightclub during Latin Night. Dunn, feeling a threat to the immigrant community, began shouting at the officers, calling them “racists” and “fascists.” In a moment that would soon become legal legend, he then flung his Subway sandwich at Gregory Lairmore, an agent with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Agent Lairmore, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, later testified that the sandwich “exploded” on his chest, leaving him with the distinct odor of “onions and mustard.” However, he admitted he wasn’t actually hurt. Dunn, who was quickly apprehended by police, was captured on a body camera stating, “I was trying to draw them away from where they were. I succeeded.” The incident, captured and shared online, quickly became a symbol of resistance against the Trump administration’s deployment of federal law enforcement and increased deportation efforts in DC (NPR, CNN).

The consequences for Dunn were swift. He lost his job at the Justice Department. Initially, the U.S. Attorney’s office in DC pushed for a serious felony assault charge. However, a grand jury – an important body that reviews evidence to decide if charges are warranted – declined to indict him on that severe count. This led to the case being downgraded to a misdemeanor charge: assaulting or impeding a federal officer. This early shift in charges highlights a crucial lesson: the prosecution’s initial stance doesn’t always determine the final outcome, and the grand jury process provides an important check.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro voiced the prosecution’s perspective, emphasizing that “law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how ‘minor’” and even suggesting that “Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another” (CNN). This sentiment underscores the seriousness with which authorities view any physical interaction with officers, regardless of the perceived harm.

However, Dunn’s defense team, led by attorney Sabrina Shroff, adopted a remarkably effective strategy. They didn’t dispute that Dunn threw the sandwich. Instead, they focused on the central legal question: did throwing a footlong Subway sandwich truly constitute an actual assault under the law? They argued it was a “harmless gesture that caused no harm or injury” (NPR). To counter the agent’s claim of an “explosion,” they presented a photograph of the sandwich post-impact, still mostly intact in its wrapper. Shroff pointed out the sheer “absurdity” of the situation, revealing that Agent Lairmore’s colleagues had even given him “gag gifts” – a plush sandwich and a “Felony Footlong” patch – after the incident. “They all think it’s funny,” Shroff emphasized to the jury, suggesting the agent himself wasn’t truly threatened.

After roughly seven hours of deliberation, the jury returned with their verdict: Not Guilty. A juror, when asked if she felt the sub “exploded,” simply laughed, clearly indicating the defense’s strategy had resonated. Dunn, visibly relieved, told reporters, “I would like to thank family and friends and strangers for all of their support… That night I believed that I was protecting the rights of immigrants” (CNN).

This extraordinary case offers a compelling entry point into understanding assault law, particularly in the unique and often confusing jurisdictional landscape of Washington DC.

Assault in DC: Navigating Two Legal Worlds

When you’re in Washington DC, you’re not just dealing with local laws; you’re often navigating both District of Columbia statutes and federal laws. This dual jurisdiction is a critical factor in many criminal cases, and assault is no exception. The Subway sandwich case, involving a federal officer, landed squarely in federal court. But had Dunn assaulted a private citizen or a local DC police officer, the case would likely have been heard in DC Superior Court under District law. Understanding these differences is absolutely essential.

Federal Assault Law: Protecting Federal Officers (18 U.S.C. § 111)

Federal law has specific provisions to protect its agents and employees. The statute Dunn was charged under, 18 U.S.C. § 111, makes it a crime to “forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any person… while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties.” This law covers a wide range of federal personnel, from border patrol agents to FBI agents, and it creates different levels of severity based on what happened:

• Simple Assault (Misdemeanor): This is the least severe, punishable by up to one year in prison. This is the charge Dunn faced after the grand jury downgraded it. For simple assault, prosecutors generally need to show that you intentionally made physical contact, or acted in a way that would reasonably make someone fear immediate harm. Importantly, actual physical injury is often not required for this level of assault. The focus is on the act itself and the intent behind it.
• More Serious Assaults (Felony): If the actions involve actual physical contact or an intention to commit another serious crime, the penalties jump significantly, potentially leading to up to 8 years in prison. This is what the U.S. Attorney’s office initially sought against Dunn. Here, proving that the physical contact occurred and had a certain impact, or that there was a clear intent to do more harm, becomes crucial.
• Aggravated Assaults (Enhanced Felony): The most severe tier, carrying up to 20 years in prison, applies if a dangerous weapon is used or if the officer suffers actual bodily injury. Thankfully, this was not applicable in Dunn’s case.

The reason Dunn’s case remained in federal court was because he allegedly directed his actions at a federal officer. The grand jury’s decision to downgrade the charge to simple assault under this federal law meant they likely felt there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the more serious elements, such as significant physical contact or the intent to inflict greater harm, especially given that the “assault weapon” was a sandwich and no real injury occurred. This distinction between simple assault and more serious forms of assault was a key battleground for the defense and ultimately influenced the jury’s verdict.

DC Superior Court Assault Law: Local Protections (§ 22–404)

While Dunn’s case was federal, it’s equally important to understand how assault is prosecuted under local DC law, as this is where many of our clients at Monument Legal find themselves. DC Code § 22–404 outlines various forms of assault or threatened assault within the District:

• Simple Assault (Misdemeanor): This covers situations where someone “unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner.” The penalty for this can be up to 180 days in prison. Similar to federal simple assault, actual physical injury isn’t always a prerequisite; merely placing someone in reasonable fear of immediate bodily harm can be enough. This would be the DC equivalent of the simple assault charge Dunn faced.
• Assault with Significant Bodily Injury (Felony): This is a much more serious charge, carrying up to 3 years in prison. The key here is causing “significant bodily injury,” which the law defines quite specifically. This isn’t just a bump or a bruise; it includes things like bone fractures, lacerations requiring stitches, loss of consciousness, or traumatic brain injuries. As you can imagine, a Subway sandwich, no matter how enthusiastically thrown, would be highly unlikely to inflict this level of harm!

The distinction between these two jurisdictions and their respective statutes is critical. A criminal defense lawyer in Washington DC must be intimately familiar with both, as the specifics of the alleged victim (federal vs. local) and the nature of the alleged harm will dictate which legal framework applies and the potential consequences.

Deconstructing the Defense: How a Hoagie Hero Led to “Not Guilty”

Sean Dunn’s “not guilty” verdict wasn’t just luck; it was the result of a deliberate, well-executed defense strategy that skillfully navigated the intricacies of assault law. His case offers invaluable lessons on common and effective defenses against assault charges:

1. Lack of Intent: In many assault cases, what you intended to do is everything. While simple assault often requires only general intent (meaning you intended to do the action that constituted the assault), the prosecution still needs to prove that you intended to cause fear or injury, or at least acted with reckless disregard. Dunn’s defense masterfully argued that his intent was not to harm Agent Lairmore, but “to draw them away.” While throwing an object can certainly be seen as an aggressive act, the defense successfully challenged whether Dunn possessed the specific intent to “forcibly assault” or “intimidate” in a legally meaningful way, especially given the minimal nature of the projectile. For Monument Legal clients, we meticulously investigate the circumstances and your state of mind to challenge the prosecution’s claims about your intent.
2. No Actual Harm or Reasonable Threat: This was arguably the most crucial element of Dunn’s defense. His lawyers didn’t deny he threw the sandwich, but they vigorously questioned whether a footlong Subway sandwich could, or did, inflict bodily harm or even cause a reasonable person to truly feel threatened. The image of the sandwich still largely in its wrapper, juxtaposed with the agent’s rather dramatic claim of an “explosion,” effectively undermined the perceived danger. The jury’s laughter at the “exploded” sandwich claim spoke volumes – they clearly didn’t buy the severity of the threat. This defense highlights that for an assault charge to stick, there must be a tangible element of force or threat that goes beyond mere annoyance or a trivial act. “A footlong from Subway could not and certainly did not inflict bodily harm,” his attorney argued (CNN). When defending our clients, we focus on the actual impact and whether the alleged victim’s fear was genuinely reasonable under the circumstances.
3. Challenging Witness Credibility and Undermining the Perceived Threat: Agent Lairmore’s testimony about the “exploded” sandwich and smelling onions and mustard, while perhaps factually accurate from his perspective, was significantly weakened by the defense’s revelation of the “gag gifts” he received from colleagues. This suggested that even his own fellow officers didn’t perceive the incident as a serious threat or assault, thereby casting doubt on the credibility of the agent’s claim of being “assaulted” in a legal sense. If the “victim” of an alleged assault himself made light of the situation, how could a jury be convinced it was a serious crime? A skilled criminal defense attorney will always look for inconsistencies, motivations, and other factors that can challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses.
4. The “Absurdity” Defense (Context Matters): While not a formal legal defense, the “absurdity” of the situation played a significant psychological role for the jury. The image of a grown man facing federal charges for a sandwich-throwing incident, especially one where no injury occurred and the “victim” received humorous mementos, likely made it difficult for the jury to believe the legal definition of “assault” had been met. The broader context, including the political tensions of the moment and Dunn’s stated motives for acting, also shaped the jury’s perception.

These defenses, meticulously crafted and presented, ultimately led to Dunn’s acquittal. His case is a powerful reminder that even when the basic facts of an interaction are undisputed, the legal interpretation of those facts – and whether they meet the specific elements of a crime – can be successfully challenged.

Beyond the Verdict: The Power of a Strong Defense and the Path to Diversion

Sean Dunn’s case serves as a beacon of hope and a critical reminder of several truths about our justice system:

• The Importance of Grand Juries: Dunn’s initial felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor after a grand jury failed to indict him on the higher charge. This highlights the vital role grand juries play in vetting charges and preventing overzealous prosecution. They act as a check, ensuring that there’s probable cause for serious charges before a case proceeds to trial.
• Juries as the Conscience of the Community: Despite the U.S. Attorney’s strong stance, the jury, representing the community, ultimately sided with Dunn. This illustrates that juries bring common sense and societal norms into the courtroom, weighing the evidence not just on technical legal definitions but also on what feels just and reasonable.
• The Indispensability of Experienced Legal Counsel: Dunn’s victory was undeniably due to his shrewd legal team. They understood the nuances of federal assault law, skillfully cross-examined witnesses, and presented a compelling narrative that resonated with the jury. Facing any criminal charge, especially assault charges in DC or Federal court, without an experienced criminal defense lawyer is a perilous endeavor. A skilled attorney knows how to challenge the prosecution’s case, leverage every available defense, and protect your rights.

Navigating the Possibility of Diversion Programs

While Dunn’s case went to trial, many individuals facing assault charges might have another path: diversion. Diversion programs are designed to offer alternatives to traditional prosecution, particularly for first-time offenders or those accused of non-violent crimes. In both DC and federal systems, these programs can be incredibly valuable.

What is Diversion?

Diversion programs allow defendants to potentially avoid a criminal conviction and have their charges dropped or significantly reduced if they successfully complete certain conditions. These conditions might include:

• Attending anger management classes.
• Performing community service.
• Paying restitution to victims.
• Participating in counseling or treatment programs.

What are the Key Benefits of Diversion?

• No Criminal Record: Successfully completing a diversion program can lead to the charges being dismissed, meaning you won’t have a criminal conviction on your record. This is crucial for employment, housing, and educational opportunities.
• Focus on Rehabilitation: Diversion often emphasizes addressing underlying issues that may have contributed to the alleged offense, promoting personal growth and preventing future legal troubles.
• Reduced Stress and Cost: While not entirely free, diversion can often be less stressful and potentially less costly than enduring a full trial process.

How is Eligibility for Diversion Determined?

Eligibility varies depending on the jurisdiction, the nature of the alleged crime, and your past criminal history. Generally, diversion programs are more accessible for:

• First-time offenders.
• Those charged with misdemeanors or less serious felonies.
• Individuals who show genuine remorse and a willingness to participate.

At Monument Legal, we thoroughly explore every possible avenue for our clients, including negotiating for diversion programs when appropriate. We understand that not every case needs to go to trial, and sometimes, the best outcome is one that allows you to move forward without the burden of a criminal conviction.

Why Monument Legal is Your Ally in DC and Federal Assault Cases

The “Felony Footlong” case illustrates perfectly that even seemingly straightforward legal matters are anything but. The distinction between a minor act and a criminal assault hinges on complex legal definitions, intent, context, and the skillful advocacy of your defense team.

Whether you’re facing assault charges in DC Superior Court or Federal Court, the stakes are incredibly high. A conviction can lead to jail time, hefty fines, a permanent criminal record, and long-term consequences for your career, reputation, and personal freedom.

At Monument Legal, we specialize in providing vigorous, strategic criminal defense across Washington DC, Virginia, and the Federal system. Our team understands the nuances of assault law, from the local DC statutes to complex federal codes. We approach every case with a commitment to:

• Thorough Investigation: We meticulously examine every piece of evidence, witness testimony, and procedural detail, just as Sean Dunn’s lawyers did with the “exploded” sandwich claim.
• Strategic Defense Planning: We develop customized defense strategies tailored to the specifics of your case, focusing on challenging the prosecution’s narrative, questioning intent, and highlighting any lack of credible evidence.
• Expert Negotiation: We aggressively negotiate with prosecutors, advocating for reduced charges, diversion programs, or outright dismissals when possible.
• Aggressive Courtroom Advocacy: Should your case proceed to trial, you’ll have fierce advocates by your side, ready to present a compelling defense and fight for a “not guilty” verdict, just like in the “Felony Footlong” case.
• Protecting Your Rights: From initial arrest to final verdict, we ensure your constitutional rights are upheld at every stage of the legal process.

You don’t have to navigate the intimidating legal landscape alone. If you or someone you know is facing assault charges in Washington DC, Virginia, or Federal court, Monument Legal is here to help. We offer clear, concise, and accurate legal guidance, providing the insights and suggestions you need to make informed decisions about your future.

Justice Served, One Sandwich at a Time

The Sean Charles Dunn “Subway sandwich” case is more than just a memorable anecdote; it’s a powerful testament to the intricate workings of our criminal justice system. It underscores how the definition of “assault” is far from simple, how crucial intent can be, and how a dedicated defense team can sway a jury even in the face of strong prosecution. From the complexities of DC versus federal jurisdiction to the critical role of grand juries and the possibility of diversion, this case highlights why expert legal representation is not just beneficial, but essential.

At Monument Legal, we’re dedicated to upholding justice and protecting the rights of individuals facing criminal charges. Just as Sean Dunn found relief after his “not guilty” verdict, we strive to achieve the best possible outcomes for our clients, ensuring that every person receives a fair and robust defense.

Don’t let a legal challenge overwhelm you; reach out to us today for a FREE consultation and let us help you build your strongest defense against assault cases in DC and Federal courts. We’re here to fight for your future.