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.
Cotizen juries absolutely exist for jury nullification. Otherwise it would be better to have professionals who are experts in the law making the rulings like judges do in most civil cases.
I was in a jury recently, and they were clear in the instructions that we were to make decisions on the basis of the law as it is, not one what we think it should be. Some of the questions during jury selected were specifically tailored to identifying those who might consider nullification.
Juries still exist in civil cases. They are there to make findings of fact, just like a criminal case. Bench trials are those without a material dispute of the facts.
Nullification is a side effect, a consequence of the process. Nullification is not the primary reason for a jury.
They tell you to only consider the law as written, but that doesn’t make nullification illegal or improper. They just don’t like it.
Their duty as civil servants is to uphold the law as written. Challenging laws as unjust is the duty of the citizenry.
…
did you read what I wrote?
I don’t think the person you’re replying to is disagreeing with you, they’re just pointing out that in this case, the jury didn’t have to nullify an existing law for the tow truck driver to be found not guilty.