Stephen Miller has erupted at “blatant jury nullification” after a Los Angeles tow truck driver was acquitted of stealing an ICE vehicle in the latest embarrassment for Donald Trump’s Justice Department.
Bobby Nuñez, 33, was charged with theft of government property after towing away a locked ICE SUV—with its keys and firearm secured inside—during a chaotic immigration arrest in downtown Los Angeles on Aug. 15.
Video from the scene showed federal agents chasing the truck as it pulled away, before arresting Nuñez and leading him away in handcuffs.
Jury nullification is a right.
Get fucked, you fascist fuckstick.
I hope lots and lots and lots of Americans that might be on juries have now learned of their rights due to Stephen Miller crying about it.
I hope Luigi’s jury nullified everything. But I don’t think that is necessary, a simple acquittal will do.
An acquittal is jury nullification. The jury decides “yeah, they probably did it, but this is some bullshit” and votes not guilty.
Jury nullification exists because juries can aquit for any reason. They are encouraged to acquit based on facts and “shadow of a doubt” (criminal) or “preponderance of evidence” (civil). But, they can also acquit for other reasons, and if they are doing it because the law, or it’s application in this case, is unjust, that is jury nullification (of the law).
…for now
Watch them get rid of it, somehow some way. Can’t have that pesky lil justice system interfering with Herr Miller by enforcing justice for the little guys!
Is it? I figured it was technically illegal
Edit: glad I’m downvoted so anyone else that needs to be informed, isn’t. Thanks.
It is not illegal, it is a de facto result of how our trials by jury work. It is not a good idea to mention it before a judge if you are on a jury though.
I was part of jury selection where the judge seemed to be trying to make sure no one tried it. If I was on that jury, I sure as fuck would have used it if I thought I needed to. I was not selected, probably because I didn’t give the answer they wanted when it came to ruling at direction of the judge.
Something can be illegal, and if it goes to a jury trial the jury can unify and just say “nah fam, he cool.” And just let the defendant off.
Edit: moved to where I meant to reply
It isnt illegal though.Georgia v Brailsford confirmed it in the Supreme Court with its one and only jury trial in its history.People have since made legal claims to try and rework meaning (the jury wasn’t a regular jury, it wasn’t recorded accurately, the statements are being misconstrued, etc) but the simple fact is - the only instance of a jury trial in the Supreme Court in the US contains instructions for nullification.Its legal. Anyone saying otherwise is misinformed or - like Miller - just a piece of shit.I mean, it’s not a crime if the jury says it’s not, so technically yah it’s not a crime, but we’re talking about the US justice system which assumes innocence right up until a judge says “guilty.”
(At least on paper.)
Ugh I meant to reply to the comment above yours, sorry. Apparently hit reply on the wrong spot, my bad…
s’all good, it still works.
You caught downvotes for what seemed to be a genuine question. No, it’s not technically illegal. It’s a weird loophole that exists because of the way the laws are written. The jurors cannot be prosecuted for passing the “wrong” sentence, so it is not illegal.
Sitting on a jury while intending to nullify could be illegal, because it would require perjury; They make jurors swear under oath to uphold the law, and ask if there is anything that would prevent them from doing so. If you intend to nullify and answer “no”, it is technically a lie under oath. But they can’t prove that you intended to nullify when you were answering, so prosecuting jurors for it would be a fool’s errand.
As long as you keep your mouth shut before and after you do it.
Even the claim it’s perjury is dubious, as you can consider the facts of a case and conclude not guilty for any reason. The line between premeditated not guilty and “considering the facts” first then rendering not guilty anyway, is incredibly thin.
ICE are the domestic enemies everyone in the military swears to defend the Constitution from. Really, this whole administration is.
It’s not a “weird loophole;” it’s fundamental to the way juries work. Either juries are independent, or they’re not and there’s no point in having them at all.
The notion of nullification being a “loophole” or “byproduct” or “one weird trick” or anything other than 100% intended by design is itself fascist propaganda that too many in this thread have fallen for.
it’s because they accept that judges and lawyers are opposed to it for good reason therefore it must not be a legitimate function of a jury.
no, the judges and lawyers simply don’t want people to have power lol. an independent jury cannot be held liable for their decision. it would absolutely be antithetical to their intended function.
Yep. Thanks for being a normal person. And your response validates it is technically illegal just impossible to prove. Fwiw I break the law all the time, e.g. jaywalking.
No, their response did not validate that. In fact, they said the words “it’s not technically illegal”. There is a possibly illegal way to go about it, and a legal way, and no way to prove the difference, but that doesn’t equal technically illegal.
I didn’t feel you deserved the downvotes for your first question, provided it was in good faith. You’re right, like all common misconceptions, it’s best to present clear data wherever we can.
(You may briefly see this twice because I inadvertently replied to the wrong comment)
It isnt illegal though.
Georgia v Brailsford confirmed it in the Supreme Court with its one and only jury trial in its history.
People have since made legal claims to try and rework meaning (the jury wasn’t a regular jury, it wasn’t recorded accurately, the statements are being misconstrued, etc) but the simple fact is - the only instance of a jury trial in the Supreme Court in the US contains instructions for nullification.
Its legal. Anyone saying otherwise is misinformed or - like Miller - just a piece of shit.
They’ll probably petition SCOTUS to kill that precedent too
I don’t recall anyone saying one thing or another, besides keep it on the DL, the implication of which I interpreted as, you’re not supposed to do that.
That is intentional, the keeping it on the DL part is because some will use it as a reason to remove a juror.
They shouldn’t, but they do all the same.
What’s interesting is it was a method used by colonial citizens before the revolutionary war, and often in cases of free speech. It was also used to prevent convictions for violations of the fugitive slave act. Unfortunately it was also used to allow racists to get away with crimes against black people.
The main issue boils down to a US Supreme Court decision that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify. Which led to judges penalizing anyone who tries to present a nullification argument to jurors.
There was even a case in the late 60s that confirmed nullification, and permitted courts to continue to refuse to provide any instruction on it. As in - the defense is not permitted t9 say its an option, even though its completely legal.
So its completely legal, completely valid, but ineligible for instruction. There was even a case a few years back where a judge said nullification was illegal in their instruction, which that part was overturned by the supreme court. The judge flat out lied.
Its, if you ask me, an intentional obfuscation of a completely legal procedure by those in charge.
But completely legal.