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.
I am waiting for Stephan Miller to be towed away…
Jury nullification is a right.
Get fucked, you fascist fuckstick.
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.
Jury nullification exists because juries can aquit for any reason. They are encouraged to acquit based on facts and “shadow of a doubt” (criminal) or “preponderance of evidence” (civil). But, they can also acquit for other reasons, and if they are doing it because the law, or it’s application in this case, is unjust, that is jury nullification (of the law).
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.
…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!
Is it? I figured it was technically illegal
Edit: glad I’m downvoted so anyone else that needs to be informed, isn’t. Thanks.
deleted by creator
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.deleted by creator
Ugh I meant to reply to the comment above yours, sorry. Apparently hit reply on the wrong spot, my bad…
deleted by creator
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 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.
They’ll probably petition SCOTUS to kill that precedent too
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.
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.
But they can’t prove that you intended to nullify
As long as you keep your mouth shut before and after you do it.
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.
Hey yo, can someone with image editing skills turn that thumbnail of sad miller into a sad clown please?
deleted by creator
I believe the US populace is starting to think of ICE as injustice and automatically nullify.
We’re starting to lose faith in every single branch and service of government, which is a dangerous spot to be in. It will mean we allow industry and the rich to gain even more control than they already have.
That’s always been the fundamental misconception by everyday people who are conservatives. They got it in their head that less government meant the power relinquished by government reverted to them when it fact that power goes to the wealthy or the organized. On the right, the wealthy always lead the organized.
Thoon
Jury nullification isn’t illegal lmao you fucking fascist crybaby.
WAHHHHHH WAAHHHHHH PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS WAHHHHH
Just wait, unless the US public drastically ramp up resistance.
i have much doubt we will resist or rebel to any meaningful degree. but i still remain hopeful.
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.
More pouty Stephen Miller, please.
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.
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.
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.
10 minutes in prison would have been overkill.
I hope he sues for wrongful prosecution.
“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.”
Unfortunately, he didn’t literally melt.
OK, well, he is a melt, but that’s different.
Maybe this movie will end like Raiders of the Lost Ark
No, no. Must be thinking of kristi’s face melting, makes more sense!
Brain Aneurysm you can do it we believe in you
Stephen Miller, you are absolutely unlovable, aren’t you? But that’s just you, you don’t want a hug, you want your pants around your ankles in front of a thousand ovens ablaze.
The world will be much better when your kilogram and a half of potassium is returned to agriculture.
