772
Stephen Miller melts down as ‘leftist’ jury acquits man who towed ICE truck away
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
772 points (99.0% liked)
politics
26843 readers
1730 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Jury nullification is a right.
Get fucked, you fascist fuckstick.
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.
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).
...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.
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.
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.
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.~~
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.)
Ugh I meant to reply to the comment above yours, sorry. Apparently hit reply on the wrong spot, my bad...
s'all good, it still works.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.