A jury found Sean Charles Dunn, the man accused of throwing a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent in Washington, D.C., not guilty after three days of testimony and dozens of exhibits.

After the verdict, Dunn hugged his attorneys and said, “I’m relieved and look forward to moving on with my life.”

“I’m so happy!” his lawyer Sabrina Shroff shouted as she left the courtroom.

Dunn, a former Department of Justice staffer, had been hit with a misdemeanor assault charge after a grand jury failed to indict him on a felony assault charge for allegedly throwing a Subway sandwich at the agent during the federal law enforcement surge in August. Video of the encounter went viral after Dunn’s arrest.

According to the earlier felony criminal complaint, Dunn allegedly approached the officer and shouted, “Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!”

After several minutes of confrontation, Dunn allegedly threw the sandwich, striking the officer in the chest, the complaint says.

Defense attorney Sabrina Shroff signaled her strategy immediately in her closing arguments on Wednesday, saying, “This case, ladies and gentlemen, is about a sandwich,” she said. “A sandwich that landed intact, still in its Subway wrapping.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo opened the government’s closing argument by urging jurors to find Dunn, better known online as “Sandwich Guy,” guilty of misdemeanor assault.

“This case is not about strong opinions,” DiLorenzo said. “It’s not about immigration.” Instead, he argued, Dunn crossed a line the night he threw the sandwich at a CBP agent.

The government said Dunn caused a “seven-minute disturbance” designed to pull attention away from CBP and the Metropolitan Police Department during a “high-visibility” operation. “Distract the officers, move them from their post,” DiLorenzo told jurors.

Prosecutors then played a video of Dunn admitting to officers, “I did it. I threw a sandwich. I did it to draw them away from where they were. I succeeded.”

The government argued that intent, not the menu item, is what matters. “Even with a sandwich, you don’t have the right to touch another person,” DiLorenzo said.

At several points, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols reminded jurors that their verdict must rest on the evidence presented.

When Shroff continued her argument, she turned the government’s framing on its head, not by disputing the sandwich, but by arguing its legal meaning.

She showed photos of the sandwich on the ground after it hit the CBP agent and then pointed to something the government had not, the agent’s own mementos from the incident. The agent, she said, later received a fake Subway sandwich and a “felony footlong” badge from co-workers, both of which he displayed at work.

“If someone assaulted you, if someone offended you, would you keep a memento of that assault?” Shroff asked. “Would you stick it on your lunchbox and carry it every day? Of course not.”

Shroff argued the sandwich caused no injury, was not a foreseeable weapon, and that Dunn was engaged in protected political speech. She compared the incident to “a kid throwing a stuffed toy in the middle of a bedtime temper tantrum.”

Earlier, Dunn waived his right to testify in court ahead of closing arguments.

After nearly two hours of deliberation, the jury did not reach a verdict. Proceedings will resume at 9 a.m. Thursday.

-ABC News’ Alex Mallin contributed to this report.