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.
Haven’t seen anyone address this yet, but surely the prosecution didn’t coach him to testify thusly. I mean, JFC, that testimony can only make their case look weak. And we have video proving the witness is lying!
Instead of trying to demonstrate harm, they should be leaning into “this was battery and the charge does not provide for a level of harm to have occurred”. (Don’t know if this is true in DC. Also, maybe assault is the same as battery in that jurisdiction?) If they really want to take the “harm” tack, have the pig go on about emotional distress, “It was humiliating and my fellow officers make fun of me every day. They call me ‘onions’.” 😿
Jurors are given strict instructions that they must judge the case as to whether the exact charge is valid according to the exact wording of the law, no feels. They really hammer that in even before you’re chosen.
I think the defendant loses if the jury is strict enough, but given that two grand juries refused to indict, I have a good feeling they let this guy slide.