I read this with relish 
Can a defense attorney at this level of the justice system argue that it’s selective prosecution? It’s impossible to take this prosecution seriously from the same government that pardoned people who attacked the Capitol Police with clubs and pepper spray. This guy wasn’t arrested for throwing a sandwich; he was arrested because he wasn’t wearing a red hat.
Or can that argument only be made on appea
It wasn’t jury nullifcation it was a hung(ry) jury.
There are legitimate arguments as to why it wasn’t even a misdemeanor assault. But I can’t help but think some of the juror’s were motivated by the desire to give the federal government a big middle finger. “We don’t like what you’re doing here, and we don’t care if someone throws a sandwich at you.”
The bigger issue here is, if you read about the testimony in this case, it seems like the cop perjured himself, describing the “attack” in terms that were completely at odds with the actual event, as caught on camera, trying to make it seem like more than it was.
People distributing sandwiches at high velocity is a minor problem compared to the police getting away with perjury, but no one seems to be discussing that part of this case.
The cop did say it smelled of pickles and onion and that he felt it through his bullet proof vest. What a wimp.
I thought it might be. You don’t hear “awry” everyday.
Mustard and onions, to be precise.
It can’t be raised on appeal unless a motion was made at the trial court. And, yes, a motion could be made but it’s a tough sell.
I started my career many years ago defendant misdemeanor charges. Jurors were willing to find reasonable doubt more often when the charges seems uncalled for, even if technically a crime was committed.
Jurors don’t want to ruin some one’s future over a bullshit charge. (Usually. Sometimes they were willing)
The argument that it was thrown forcefully made it assault, and the fact that it couldn’t possibly hurt the cop didn’t matter opens up a whole can of…marshmallows. People could throw marshmallows with the same amount of force-would this also be considered “assault”?
If they were seriously going to try to win this by claiming the sandwich really was a dangerous weapon, they could have at least mentioned the possibility that the cop was allergic to onions, or something.
I’d have caught the sandwich and then eaten it. 
…and then charged him with bribing an officer with that delicious deli weapon!
Is there such a crime as “unintentional assault”, since there was no way for the protestor to know this?
Depraved indifference? We know food allergies exist, and he didn’t even stop to think about the possibility! What if it had been a peanut&shrimp sandwich? That thing could have killed dozens of cops!
Again, is that a real crime?
Interestingly, I recently saw a couple of police bodycam videos pertinent to this. In one case, a woman threw a cup of water at someone in a store, and then left. Police actually tracked her down, went to her home, and arrested her for assault. I don’t know (or don’t remember) if she was convicted.
In another case, police pulled over a young lady for speeding. It probably didn’t help matters that she was angry and uncooperative, but eventually she got a traffic ticket for speeding. After signing the citation, she threw her pen at the officer, harmlessly hitting him in the chest, which one might think was disrespectful but otherwise no big deal, but he immediately arrested her for assault on a LEO. Again, I don’t know if she was actually convicted. My guess is the speeding ticket stuck, the assault charge was probably dropped. From what I see in these videos, police frequently over-charge, and the minor charges tend to get dropped.
I agree with the idea that the acquittal in the sandwich case was because, although it met the legal definition of assault, it was just too minor and downright comical for the accused to have to face actual penalties for assault.
Well, since the cop didn’t actually die, it might just be reckless endangerment:
Having a cup of water thrown at you is at least legitimately annoying; you’ll have to change your clothes, and any papers in your pocket might be damaged. It’s pretty trivial, but it’s literally orders of magnitude more inconvenient than having a sandwich bounce off your bulletproof vest.
It’s enough to intend the conduct. The prosecution doesn’t have to establish you intended the particular injury.