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.
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.