 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
The incident was videoed by a bystander, following which 20 federal agents descended upon Dunn’s house to put the cuffs on him. I’m not sure whether they surrounded his house and bellowed on a megaphone, “Come out with your hands up, and empty. If you’re holding a turkey sandwich, drop it.” I am sure they did not take any chances.
The prosecution initially tried to go ahead with the assault charge by way of a felony, but the grand jury nixed this more severe procedure, there being no harm or injury to the agent other than the sandwich exploding on him, leaving the agent smelling of mustard and onions. He was actually wearing a bulletproof vest. Maybe the feds will, going forward, change standard protection issue and supply their agents with vials of Tide. Who knows?
The prosecution however dug in and soldiered on to continue with an assault charge, albeit as a misdemeanour. Seems like in the United States, a misdemeanour trial can still attract a trial by jury. This means much time spent vetting jurors. What can either trial counsel ask jury panel members? “Hey, did you ever eat at Subway and end up with indigestion?” And would either side retain the services of a jury selection maven? “Reject juror number seven. He’s a vegetarian.” Who knows?
The matter was tried recently, and the jury found the sandwich rogue not guilty after a seven-hour deliberation. Imagine seven hours of deliberation for throwing a 12-inch sub.
How could it take that long? It reminds me of the iconic movie 12 Angry Men. The jury deliberated for ages in a murder trial, as the lone juror played by Henry Fonda slowly convinced the other 11 men to vote not guilty. I don’t know what happened in Dunn’s jury room, but I doubt 11 of the jurors were set to vote guilty right off the bat and one of them dissented, clamouring, “Whoa. It was only tuna on multigrain with a pickle.”
I presume, given the seven-hour deliberation duration, dinner was ordered in. If so, my guess is it did not consist of a dozen Subway sandwiches.
I am curious how the defence handled their case. Did they use ChatGPT? I asked AI a couple of questions and the response I got was, “Plead not guilty by reason of insanity. The guy must be insane to toss away a good sandwich.” AI added, “Any further questions? I can list a brief of cases for you involving angry protesters throwing Big Macs, Whoppers as well as Subway sandwiches at federal agents.”
Even knowing how accurate AI can be, I passed.
Meanwhile, Dunn, who was fired by his employer as a result of the incident, says he wants to get on with life. I wish him well. With his good throwing arm, he can join the Blue Jays?
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.