De minimus non curat lex

 So we’ll see what the jury thinks:

Dunn’s lawyers have claimed the case is “selective and vindictive prosecution,” arguing he was singled out for prosecution “not because of the nature of his alleged conduct — throwing a soft object that caused no injury — but because his outspoken, viral critique of the current administration’s policing and immigration policies made him a political target.”

Federal prosecutors opposed Dunn’s lawyers’ motion to dismiss the charge, writing that Dunn was “recorded throwing a sandwich at a federal officer at point-blank range.”

You may be relieved to know a grand jury didn’t think throwing a sandwich at point-blank range was a felony. Maybe if he’d thrown a Hail Mary from across a four lane street in traffic and managed to hit a target?

And yes, someone in the DOJ wrote that phrase out and submitted it in a pleading.

Yes, vindictive prosecution is very hard to prove. I’m not sure of the criminal standard, but at civil law, throwing a sandwich is an assault. The question then would be damages, which would make a civil claim pretty much preposterous.

Prosecutorial discretion should have kept this out of court, but the USAG in D.C. is anything but discrete.

Jury nullification has a high likelihood here.