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.
The only thing I want coming out of Stephen Millers mouth is the executioners bullet after that Nazi ghoul is tried and sentenced for his crimes against humanity.
Life in forced labor would be more interesting.
A lot of pot-holes need fixing.
Whiney little Nazi removed
Herr Mueller pouts when he doesn’t get his way.
If Steven Miller got an aneurism over his anger, this would be even better.
I think his head would literally explode. Which to be frank would be awesome.
Downvoted for the shitty dailybeast source and no free link. Fuck paywalls.
Bro is basically saying whiteness overrides jury decisions
I believe the US populace is starting to think of ICE as injustice and automatically nullify.
Good Let him cry like the toehead twit he is
Rich and powerful love using loopholes, until poor people get to use them too.
Then they get mad.
Jury nullification is a right.
Get fucked, you fascist fuckstick.
…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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
They’ll probably petition SCOTUS to kill that precedent too
One of my goals in life is to personally cause Stephen Miller to have a melt down.
…my personal life goal for stephen miller probably violates most lemmy hosts’ content policies to articulate…
To see his Wikipedia page say “was”…
All you have to do is feed him some garlic or throw some holy water on him and he’ll be a puddle within a minute
U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli wrote: “Apparently he thought it would be funny to interfere with our immigration enforcement operations. Now he can laugh behind bars while he faces justice. Nunez is looking at up to 10 years in federal prison if convicted.”
Essayli, acknowledged the outcome on Friday: “A jury found Mr. Nuñez not guilty. He was free on bond prior to the trial. We have no further comment.”
LOL get fucked fascists.
Apparently he thought it would be funny to interfere with our immigration enforcement operations.
I mean, he was right.
Sure would be a shame if Essayli’s car got towed briefly, and definitely not funny in any way, nope
Video from the scene showed federal agents chasing the truck as it pulled away, before arresting Nuñez and leading him away in handcuffs.
Where is the follow up court case where they pay this guy a couple million for assault and false imprisonment.
I would guess it is forthcoming.
Pee Wee Himmler better get used to lots and lots of jury nullification. It’s probably why this little asshat is trying to get away with disappearing people with no trial - he hates and despises We, The People.
Jury nullification is the real reasons juries exist. Pass all the corrupt laws and appoint all the corrupt justices you want. As long as we still have trial by jury we have a check on power from the citizens.
This is why I hate people who say they hate being on a jury.
You have the most direct access to affect your society in a jury box than you do at the ballot box.
I live in Texas. Jurors are paid $20/day with no reimbursement for expenses, and employers aren’t required to pay employees on jury duty (though mine does).
So yeah - people hate it.
Also while I would like to be a jury it can be brutal. I had a friend that did grand jury once for 6 months. They were being constantly shown murder scene photos and other graphic imagery. I’d imagine that would bother some people
…they charge more for parking than we’re paid in bexar county…
My state does it. My employer didn’t. And the courthouse was a long way away.
Except in most places you have to suffer financial hardship in order to exercise this ability
Juries exist to determine facts, and check the work of the prosecutor to make sure they proved the case to the standards required by law. They are an essential part of the legal process, and the possibility of nullification is an interesting byproduct.
This case was not nullification. He was charged with theft for towing a car, which is not theft anywhere, and is standard practice for tow truck operators. The vehicle was returned less than 20 minutes later.
Not guilty was a reasonable conclusion, not a case of a jury nullifying an otherwise solid case.
Cotizen juries absolutely exist for jury nullification. Otherwise it would be better to have professionals who are experts in the law making the rulings like judges do in most civil cases.
I was in a jury recently, and they were clear in the instructions that we were to make decisions on the basis of the law as it is, not one what we think it should be. Some of the questions during jury selected were specifically tailored to identifying those who might consider nullification.
Juries still exist in civil cases. They are there to make findings of fact, just like a criminal case. Bench trials are those without a material dispute of the facts.
Nullification is a side effect, a consequence of the process. Nullification is not the primary reason for a jury.
They tell you to only consider the law as written, but that doesn’t make nullification illegal or improper. They just don’t like it.
Their duty as civil servants is to uphold the law as written. Challenging laws as unjust is the duty of the citizenry.
…
did you read what I wrote?
I don’t think the person you’re replying to is disagreeing with you, they’re just pointing out that in this case, the jury didn’t have to nullify an existing law for the tow truck driver to be found not guilty.
a judge can issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) if they determine that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict based on the evidence.
So while it is rare the judge can still fuck everyone involved in the case no matter what the jury says.
freedom
In a criminal case, a judge can only overturn a guilty verdict.
Upon checking into that it looks like you’re right.
thank you both for bringing this up. I never knew that. That’s good to know.
“Pee Wee Himmler” is great lol
so what if it is “blatant jury nullification”? that’s not illegal.
Nice to see the concept applied to a righteous cause for once too!
