783
Stephen Miller melts down as ‘leftist’ jury acquits man who towed ICE truck away (www.thedailybeast.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
114 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -26 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (19 children)

Is it? I figured it was technically illegal

Edit: glad I'm downvoted so anyone else that needs to be informed, isn't. Thanks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 76 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 21 points 10 months ago (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    (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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent