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 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.
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.
They’ll probably petition SCOTUS to kill that precedent too