Sometimes a case comes along and reminds us that truth is often stranger than fiction. Consider for example the case of the man who was indicted and tried for throwing a sandwich at a federal agent.

The defendant, Sean Dunn, an Air Force veteran and former Justice Department paralegal, said he was protesting the federal government’s immigration policies. Prosecutors said he wasn’t on trial for his beliefs but for “throwing a sandwich at a federal officer at point-blank range.”

Yes, this was a real case. Yes, we used our already crowded federal court docket to have a misdemeanor jury trial for these charges. And yes, the evidence involved onions and an exploding sandwich.

It happened late one night outside a Subway restaurant (because of course it did). Dunn was caught on video yelling at officers and launching his sandwich toward a Customs and Border Protection agent. He admitted to throwing the sandwich. The prosecution took this as a confession. The defense treated it as performance art.

A grand jury refused to indict Dunn on felony charges, and the case was downgraded to a misdemeanor. At trial, the federal agent testified that the sandwich “exploded” on impact and left him covered in mustard and onions. “The sandwich kind of exploded all over my uniform,” he said. “It smelled of onions and mustard.”

Defense counsel wasn’t buying it. She showed jurors a photo of the sandwich still mostly intact on the ground and asked, “So… it didn’t really explode, did it?” The agent held his ground but admitted that after the incident, his coworkers gave him a plush toy sandwich as a gag gift and a sticker that read ‘Felony Footlong’. That detail might have sealed the case.

In closing arguments defense counsel summed up the defense by saying, “If that vest will stop military rifle fire, it will certainly stop a sandwich.” The jury deliberated for seven hours before returning a not-guilty verdict. The judge had instructed that, to convict, jurors must find that Dunn acted “forcibly” and created a “reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.” Apparently, a little mustard and onion was not enough to meet the standard.

Stories like this provide some levity in a criminal justice system that often involves egregious acts of violence and harm. But this was not a serious case. This was a case where an officer had a mustard stain and a little onion on his shirt. It is hard to imagine the resources that were involved in bringing these charges and trying this case in a federal court system that is already overcrowded and backlogged with serious criminal charges. This case should have been settled with a wet wipe and a dry-cleaning bill.