Jury refuses to indict Sandwich Man and other Trump cop misadventures

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PPs point is that whether a sandwich is harmful or offensive is NOT cut and dried. It could be but it also could not. The gag gifts and the lying on the stand ("exploded") undercut the case and it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that the sandwich was not harmful or offensive.

I’m the prosecutor poster. I agree with this. I should have been clearer with my conclusion: throwing a sandwich absolutely could support a conviction for assault. To put it slightly differently, hitting someone with a sandwich is not categorically NOT assault.

This is a quibble, but I don’t agree that the agent lied. I didn’t pay very careful attention to the case, but I suspect he used the word “exploded” colloquially. If a pen breaks in my purse or my soda opens up in my lunch bag, it would be fair to say that the pen or the soda exploded, even if there was no incendiary device involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

I don’t think your #2 is correct. Look at the Hernandez case in DC. Not all physical contact is “offensive or harmful.”

PP here. I don't think your comment is responsive to what I wrote. I agree that not all physical contact is harmful or offensive. My point was that unwanted physical contact that IS harmful or offensive is an assault.

I'm familiar with Hernandez and I agree that it deals with "offensive touching" assaults, but I don't think it stands for exactly the proposition that you think it does. Hernandez explicitly holds that an unwanted touching is an assault when the victim finds the unwanted touching offensive (and when a reasonable person would agree). The question of whether an unwanted touching is offensive is a question for the factfinder. Certainly a jury could conclude that throwing a sandwich at someone is offensive.

Pages 30-31 are illustrative. https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/Hernandez%20v%20US%2015-CM-130_0.pdf

A jury could conclude that but did not. That’s the point - this was not “lawlessness” or even jury nullification. The jury found that the act did not constitute assault under the law.

Why did he flee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

I don’t think your #2 is correct. Look at the Hernandez case in DC. Not all physical contact is “offensive or harmful.”

PP here. I don't think your comment is responsive to what I wrote. I agree that not all physical contact is harmful or offensive. My point was that unwanted physical contact that IS harmful or offensive is an assault.

I'm familiar with Hernandez and I agree that it deals with "offensive touching" assaults, but I don't think it stands for exactly the proposition that you think it does. Hernandez explicitly holds that an unwanted touching is an assault when the victim finds the unwanted touching offensive (and when a reasonable person would agree). The question of whether an unwanted touching is offensive is a question for the factfinder. Certainly a jury could conclude that throwing a sandwich at someone is offensive.

Pages 30-31 are illustrative. https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/Hernandez%20v%20US%2015-CM-130_0.pdf

A jury could conclude that but did not. That’s the point - this was not “lawlessness” or even jury nullification. The jury found that the act did not constitute assault under the law.

We don’t know that. I agree it is a possibility, but I don’t think we know precisely why they reached that verdict. It’s also possible that some jurors felt that the conduct wasn’t an assault and others disagreed but were willing to nullify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact the evidence is clearly there for assault and DC jury won't convict is a reason why the crime is so high

As explained to you many times it was not assault. Everybody involved knew it was a Subway sandwich and knew it was incapable of causing any harm.

It was an open and shut public littering case but did not meet the definition of assault. Oh, and the officer lied on the stand by saying it exploded.

+1

Clearly, it was NOT assault.

I'm sure the people here whining about the sandwich were totally fine when the J6ers assaulted LOEs.

I’ve lost count of the number of formally sane, educated, generally well adjusted Democrat friends I have who’ve been, I think, driven clinically insane by Trump. It’s to the point that they will condone and even encourage conduct that is clearly against their public safety or financial interests out of some desperate hope that it will hurt Trump, which of course it will not. It really is concerning and I don’t know how to help them.

DP. cool now discuss J6.

Btw - federal law makes clear that in order to be assault there had to be a reasonable apprehension of harm. That did not exist here.

An example of the insanity is a person ignoring a thoughtful post from a career prosecutor walking us through the analysis and concluding that “absolutely” a simple assault occurred. You are heading down a dark path and I hope you find peace.

The career prosecutor didn’t summarize the law correctly.

And what about J6?

They did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs point is that whether a sandwich is harmful or offensive is NOT cut and dried. It could be but it also could not. The gag gifts and the lying on the stand ("exploded") undercut the case and it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that the sandwich was not harmful or offensive.

I’m the prosecutor poster. I agree with this. I should have been clearer with my conclusion: throwing a sandwich absolutely could support a conviction for assault. To put it slightly differently, hitting someone with a sandwich is not categorically NOT assault.

This is a quibble, but I don’t agree that the agent lied. I didn’t pay very careful attention to the case, but I suspect he used the word “exploded” colloquially. If a pen breaks in my purse or my soda opens up in my lunch bag, it would be fair to say that the pen or the soda exploded, even if there was no incendiary device involved.

That would be fair to say but that is not what happened.

He said the sandwich exploded from its wrapper. Pictures of the sandwich on the ground post toss showed that that was a false statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs point is that whether a sandwich is harmful or offensive is NOT cut and dried. It could be but it also could not. The gag gifts and the lying on the stand ("exploded") undercut the case and it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that the sandwich was not harmful or offensive.

I’m the prosecutor poster. I agree with this. I should have been clearer with my conclusion: throwing a sandwich absolutely could support a conviction for assault. To put it slightly differently, hitting someone with a sandwich is not categorically NOT assault.

This is a quibble, but I don’t agree that the agent lied. I didn’t pay very careful attention to the case, but I suspect he used the word “exploded” colloquially. If a pen breaks in my purse or my soda opens up in my lunch bag, it would be fair to say that the pen or the soda exploded, even if there was no incendiary device involved.

That would be fair to say but that is not what happened.

He said the sandwich exploded from its wrapper. Pictures of the sandwich on the ground post toss showed that that was a false statement.

Was the photo made public? It’s hard to evaluate the truth of his statement without the photo that was used to impeach him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

Thank you for this explanation and your public service. I agree with your legal analysis, though differ with you that the case was stupid. In light of the violence this year against law enforcement and the number of political protests that occur regularly in DC I think this case could have had important deterrent effect. Now the public is left with the mistaken belief that some touching of police is permissible under the law and some will attempt to find the boundaries. Sandwich is fine now. So, how about spit? It’s just water. How about a brick? This jury just made police less safe in DC and for that we will all suffer.

DP. It is permissible though. The administration made that clear when the J6 criminals who attacked police with actual weapons were pardoned and hailed as patriots. DC juries did a lot of work for years ago bringing indictments and convicting those people. For a DC jury to now refuse to convict a guy who threw a sandwich is following the precedent set by the Republicans. Can’t have it both ways.

Great. Now Trump AND the people of DC are on record condoning violence against police. Who do you think is going to pay the price? You really showed him!

Only a troll would call this "violence."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs point is that whether a sandwich is harmful or offensive is NOT cut and dried. It could be but it also could not. The gag gifts and the lying on the stand ("exploded") undercut the case and it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that the sandwich was not harmful or offensive.

I’m the prosecutor poster. I agree with this. I should have been clearer with my conclusion: throwing a sandwich absolutely could support a conviction for assault. To put it slightly differently, hitting someone with a sandwich is not categorically NOT assault.

This is a quibble, but I don’t agree that the agent lied. I didn’t pay very careful attention to the case, but I suspect he used the word “exploded” colloquially. If a pen breaks in my purse or my soda opens up in my lunch bag, it would be fair to say that the pen or the soda exploded, even if there was no incendiary device involved.

That would be fair to say but that is not what happened.

He said the sandwich exploded from its wrapper. Pictures of the sandwich on the ground post toss showed that that was a false statement.

Was the photo made public? It’s hard to evaluate the truth of his statement without the photo that was used to impeach him.

You don't have to see the photo because a jury representing all of us saw it and concluded he was not truthful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs point is that whether a sandwich is harmful or offensive is NOT cut and dried. It could be but it also could not. The gag gifts and the lying on the stand ("exploded") undercut the case and it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that the sandwich was not harmful or offensive.

I’m the prosecutor poster. I agree with this. I should have been clearer with my conclusion: throwing a sandwich absolutely could support a conviction for assault. To put it slightly differently, hitting someone with a sandwich is not categorically NOT assault.

This is a quibble, but I don’t agree that the agent lied. I didn’t pay very careful attention to the case, but I suspect he used the word “exploded” colloquially. If a pen breaks in my purse or my soda opens up in my lunch bag, it would be fair to say that the pen or the soda exploded, even if there was no incendiary device involved.

That would be fair to say but that is not what happened.

He said the sandwich exploded from its wrapper. Pictures of the sandwich on the ground post toss showed that that was a false statement.

Was the photo made public? It’s hard to evaluate the truth of his statement without the photo that was used to impeach him.

You don't have to see the photo because a jury representing all of us saw it and concluded he was not truthful.

We have no idea why the jury reached the verdict it did. It’s silly to conclude that the jury believed the agent lied on the stand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs point is that whether a sandwich is harmful or offensive is NOT cut and dried. It could be but it also could not. The gag gifts and the lying on the stand ("exploded") undercut the case and it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that the sandwich was not harmful or offensive.

I’m the prosecutor poster. I agree with this. I should have been clearer with my conclusion: throwing a sandwich absolutely could support a conviction for assault. To put it slightly differently, hitting someone with a sandwich is not categorically NOT assault.

This is a quibble, but I don’t agree that the agent lied. I didn’t pay very careful attention to the case, but I suspect he used the word “exploded” colloquially. If a pen breaks in my purse or my soda opens up in my lunch bag, it would be fair to say that the pen or the soda exploded, even if there was no incendiary device involved.

That would be fair to say but that is not what happened.

He said the sandwich exploded from its wrapper. Pictures of the sandwich on the ground post toss showed that that was a false statement.

Was the photo made public? It’s hard to evaluate the truth of his statement without the photo that was used to impeach him.

Yes, it's from the public video and was presented in court.

Face it, it was not assault under the law. Had the sandwich wrapper actually broke and mustard exploded onto him then it might have been offensive. But it didn't so it wasn't. And he lied about that.

In the end, because the sandwich did not explode, it was akin to throwing a stuffed animal. Incapable of harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs point is that whether a sandwich is harmful or offensive is NOT cut and dried. It could be but it also could not. The gag gifts and the lying on the stand ("exploded") undercut the case and it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that the sandwich was not harmful or offensive.

I’m the prosecutor poster. I agree with this. I should have been clearer with my conclusion: throwing a sandwich absolutely could support a conviction for assault. To put it slightly differently, hitting someone with a sandwich is not categorically NOT assault.

This is a quibble, but I don’t agree that the agent lied. I didn’t pay very careful attention to the case, but I suspect he used the word “exploded” colloquially. If a pen breaks in my purse or my soda opens up in my lunch bag, it would be fair to say that the pen or the soda exploded, even if there was no incendiary device involved.

That would be fair to say but that is not what happened.

He said the sandwich exploded from its wrapper. Pictures of the sandwich on the ground post toss showed that that was a false statement.

Was the photo made public? It’s hard to evaluate the truth of his statement without the photo that was used to impeach him.

Yes, it's from the public video and was presented in court.

Face it, it was not assault under the law. Had the sandwich wrapper actually broke and mustard exploded onto him then it might have been offensive. But it didn't so it wasn't. And he lied about that.

In the end, because the sandwich did not explode, it was akin to throwing a stuffed animal. Incapable of harm.

Are you saying that no reasonable person could conclude that the agent was assaulted? Because the trial judge considered that issue and disagreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs point is that whether a sandwich is harmful or offensive is NOT cut and dried. It could be but it also could not. The gag gifts and the lying on the stand ("exploded") undercut the case and it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that the sandwich was not harmful or offensive.

I’m the prosecutor poster. I agree with this. I should have been clearer with my conclusion: throwing a sandwich absolutely could support a conviction for assault. To put it slightly differently, hitting someone with a sandwich is not categorically NOT assault.

This is a quibble, but I don’t agree that the agent lied. I didn’t pay very careful attention to the case, but I suspect he used the word “exploded” colloquially. If a pen breaks in my purse or my soda opens up in my lunch bag, it would be fair to say that the pen or the soda exploded, even if there was no incendiary device involved.

That would be fair to say but that is not what happened.

He said the sandwich exploded from its wrapper. Pictures of the sandwich on the ground post toss showed that that was a false statement.

Was the photo made public? It’s hard to evaluate the truth of his statement without the photo that was used to impeach him.

Yes, it's from the public video and was presented in court.

Face it, it was not assault under the law. Had the sandwich wrapper actually broke and mustard exploded onto him then it might have been offensive. But it didn't so it wasn't. And he lied about that.

In the end, because the sandwich did not explode, it was akin to throwing a stuffed animal. Incapable of harm.

Are you saying that no reasonable person could conclude that the agent was assaulted? Because the trial judge considered that issue and disagreed.

I am saying that a panel of reasonable people concluded, justifiably, that the agent was not assaulted because the touching was neither harmful (a soft Subway sandwich) nor offensive (the wrapper stayed intact).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs point is that whether a sandwich is harmful or offensive is NOT cut and dried. It could be but it also could not. The gag gifts and the lying on the stand ("exploded") undercut the case and it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that the sandwich was not harmful or offensive.

I’m the prosecutor poster. I agree with this. I should have been clearer with my conclusion: throwing a sandwich absolutely could support a conviction for assault. To put it slightly differently, hitting someone with a sandwich is not categorically NOT assault.

This is a quibble, but I don’t agree that the agent lied. I didn’t pay very careful attention to the case, but I suspect he used the word “exploded” colloquially. If a pen breaks in my purse or my soda opens up in my lunch bag, it would be fair to say that the pen or the soda exploded, even if there was no incendiary device involved.

That would be fair to say but that is not what happened.

He said the sandwich exploded from its wrapper. Pictures of the sandwich on the ground post toss showed that that was a false statement.

Was the photo made public? It’s hard to evaluate the truth of his statement without the photo that was used to impeach him.

You don't have to see the photo because a jury representing all of us saw it and concluded he was not truthful.

We have no idea why the jury reached the verdict it did. It’s silly to conclude that the jury believed the agent lied on the stand.

While we can't say what the jury believed we can confidently say the agent lied on that stand because there is clear cut evidence that the wrapper stayed intact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs point is that whether a sandwich is harmful or offensive is NOT cut and dried. It could be but it also could not. The gag gifts and the lying on the stand ("exploded") undercut the case and it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that the sandwich was not harmful or offensive.

I’m the prosecutor poster. I agree with this. I should have been clearer with my conclusion: throwing a sandwich absolutely could support a conviction for assault. To put it slightly differently, hitting someone with a sandwich is not categorically NOT assault.

This is a quibble, but I don’t agree that the agent lied. I didn’t pay very careful attention to the case, but I suspect he used the word “exploded” colloquially. If a pen breaks in my purse or my soda opens up in my lunch bag, it would be fair to say that the pen or the soda exploded, even if there was no incendiary device involved.

That would be fair to say but that is not what happened.

He said the sandwich exploded from its wrapper. Pictures of the sandwich on the ground post toss showed that that was a false statement.

Was the photo made public? It’s hard to evaluate the truth of his statement without the photo that was used to impeach him.

Yes, it's from the public video and was presented in court.

Face it, it was not assault under the law. Had the sandwich wrapper actually broke and mustard exploded onto him then it might have been offensive. But it didn't so it wasn't. And he lied about that.

In the end, because the sandwich did not explode, it was akin to throwing a stuffed animal. Incapable of harm.

Are you saying that no reasonable person could conclude that the agent was assaulted? Because the trial judge considered that issue and disagreed.

I am saying that a panel of reasonable people concluded, justifiably, that the agent was not assaulted because the touching was neither harmful (a soft Subway sandwich) nor offensive (the wrapper stayed intact).

But again, you don’t know that. You simply have no way of knowing their rationale. Or even that they all had the same rationale.

Certainly your theory is a completely reasonable possibility. It is not the only possibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact the evidence is clearly there for assault and DC jury won't convict is a reason why the crime is so high

As explained to you many times it was not assault. Everybody involved knew it was a Subway sandwich and knew it was incapable of causing any harm.

It was an open and shut public littering case but did not meet the definition of assault. Oh, and the officer lied on the stand by saying it exploded.

+1

Clearly, it was NOT assault.

I'm sure the people here whining about the sandwich were totally fine when the J6ers assaulted LOEs.

I’ve lost count of the number of formally sane, educated, generally well adjusted Democrat friends I have who’ve been, I think, driven clinically insane by Trump. It’s to the point that they will condone and even encourage conduct that is clearly against their public safety or financial interests out of some desperate hope that it will hurt Trump, which of course it will not. It really is concerning and I don’t know how to help them.

DP. cool now discuss J6.

Btw - federal law makes clear that in order to be assault there had to be a reasonable apprehension of harm. That did not exist here.

An example of the insanity is a person ignoring a thoughtful post from a career prosecutor walking us through the analysis and concluding that “absolutely” a simple assault occurred. You are heading down a dark path and I hope you find peace.

The career prosecutor didn’t summarize the law correctly.

And what about J6?

If you’re going to spend the rest of your life explaining away every horrible thing that happens by reflexively invoking J6, then you are in for a dark and lonely existence.

lol dude. If you are going to hysterically claim that acquittal for throwing a sandwich is lawless insurrection while ignoring J6 and the pardons, we all know exactly what to think about you.

Exactly.

Fvk off, MAGA.