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.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Is it? I figured it was technically illegal

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

      • TipRing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.

      • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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
          0
          ·
          1 month 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.

          • chosensilence@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month 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.

  • seathru@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    https://archive.ph/5LaZT

    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.