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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
…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!
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.
When you can’t comprehend that jury nullification is a by product of our judicial system. It can be used for bad or good - see lynchings of the jim crow era vs those helping slaves escape.
This prick is the embodiment of the fascist belief that the law has in groups that it does not bind but protects and our groups that bind but do not protect.
This is literally 100% the reason why a jury of your peers exists.
The founding fathers went through a system where dipshits like Stephen Miller could just make up whatever they wanted, and the people had no role, and they fought a whole war to cancel that system. They knew exactly what was up with it.
Edit: If, by some chance, you wind up on a jury where this comes up, just pretend you’ve never heard of it. Even having heard the term, or understanding the concept, will almost certainly get you disqualified from the jury. You can do the exact same process of deciding that it’s a bunch of bullshit that whatever person is being accused of whatever when it’s pretty obvious that they were not the one in the wrong, without it being called “jury nullification.” It’s just justice, it’s just common sense, like I said it is the whole intent of having a jury.
The right wingers love to trot of the jury nullification on lynching becuase it’s the only version that can relate with.
The vehicle was blocking a driveway, and it was towed a block away. ICE was back in that car less than 15 later.
10 years in prison is way overkill for that.
10 minutes in prison would have been overkill.
So you’re saying the guy was just doing his job? Towing illegally parked vehicles?
The first few minutes and any rough treatment or insults was more than enough for uh, doing his job.
The rest of the 10 years is a “you have disrespected The Party and The Race” bonus.
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.
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.
One of my goals in life is to personally cause Stephen Miller to have a melt down.
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
Rich and powerful love using loopholes, until poor people get to use them too.
Then they get mad.
If the goal is to make sure that trial results are based solely on the facts of the case and the letter of the law, then we would have juries composed of lawyers and other experts. We don’t though. We have juries made up of randomly selected citizens. There is no logical reason to have a trial by a jury of your peers other than to make it possible for your peers to protect you from unjust laws. If this was a case of jury nullification, then it’s a case of our justice system working as intended.
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.
The American taxpayers are good for it.
We don’t like direct social services but when someone gets a payout for a love one being murdered the police, that’s winning! It’s a lottery we purchase with our own blood.
Stephen Miller has erupted at “blatant jury nullification”
Jury nullification is entirely legal and built into the American justice system. Jury decision to nullify is final and protects from unjust application of laws. Cry about it, Nazi.
“Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward. And then remember this. The Imperial need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear. Remember that.”
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.
Good Let him cry like the toehead twit he is
Brain Aneurysm you can do it we believe in you
