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.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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.

      • jballs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 hours ago

        An acquittal is jury nullification. The jury decides “yeah, they probably did it, but this is some bullshit” and votes not guilty.

      • TipRing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          6 hours 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.

      • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          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.

      • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 hours ago

        (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.

      • ameancow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

        • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          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.

          • ameancow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            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.)