The Trump administration is experiencing a string of setbacks in federal cases targeting those who oppose aggressive immigration enforcement. Recent court decisions in Los Angeles saw a jury acquit Bobby Nuñez and a judge dismiss the case against Carlitos Ricardo Parias, both facing charges related to confrontations with ICE agents. These failures follow similar outcomes in Chicago and Washington D.C., where protesters have also seen charges dismissed or been acquitted, often due to questionable evidence or perceived violations of civil rights. These outcomes are unusual, as federal cases typically favor the prosecution, raising questions about the administration’s legal strategy and potentially impacting the credibility of law enforcement.
Read More
Following the acquittal of a Los Angeles tow truck driver charged with stealing an ICE vehicle, Stephen Miller condemned the verdict as “blatant jury nullification.” The driver, Bobby Nuñez, was found not guilty after being accused of theft of government property, despite being arrested after towing the vehicle during an immigration raid. This acquittal, along with others related to immigration cases, highlights the Justice Department’s struggles in proving intent or serious harm in such prosecutions, a point underscored by legal experts. This trend of acquittals and reduced charges in cases against anti-ICE protesters contrasts with the government’s aggressive approach to prosecuting those interfering with immigration enforcement, as demonstrated by the U.S. Attorney’s earlier, boastful statements about the Nuñez case.
Read More
Jury selection is set to begin Monday in the federal trial of a D.C. man accused of assaulting a federal agent with a Subway sandwich in August. The defendant, Sean Dunn, faces a misdemeanor assault charge after a grand jury declined to indict him on a felony count, prompting debate over jury instructions regarding the legal definition of assault. Key legal issues include the defendant’s claim of vindictive prosecution and a motion by prosecutors to prevent jury nullification by restricting the defense from introducing certain evidence or arguments about the case’s political context and penalties. Prosecutors are concerned about the potential for jury nullification due to the circumstances surrounding the arrest and the case’s political nature.
Read More
Luigi Mangione ordered to appear in Pennsylvania court, and it seems like this summons has stirred up quite a buzz. The focus right now is on the legal wrangling surrounding his appearance, and it appears he’s set on attending in person. This sets the stage for a potentially drawn-out process, one where the logistics of transferring him from his current situation to Pennsylvania are going to be critical. The whole situation feels complex, with multiple layers of legal maneuvering playing out. It’s clear the authorities in Pennsylvania have a vested interest in his presence, laying the groundwork for their own set of charges.… Continue reading
“Sandwich man” gets off: DC jury nullification in the age of Trump. So, let’s talk about this “Sandwich Man” situation. It’s been a whirlwind, hasn’t it? This whole story, it’s become a perfect encapsulation of the political climate. The main thing here, and it’s a crucial distinction, is whether this is truly a case of jury nullification. Jury nullification, as some folks are rightly pointing out, is when a jury essentially says, “We believe the defendant did it, but we’re not going to convict them because we disagree with the law or the way it’s being applied.” That’s a very specific thing.… Continue reading
Federal grand juries in Washington, D.C., are repeatedly refusing to indict cases brought by the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, under the Trump administration’s “federal crime crackdown.” This trend is exemplified by the case of Nathalie Rose Jones, who was accused of threatening Trump online; the grand jury returned “no bill” despite the charges. This reflects the grand jury’s resistance to the cases, as they are unconvinced by the evidence. The grand jury’s refusals have been occurring in multiple other cases as well, creating a rare clash between federal authority and local jurors.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood
Miller Outraged as “Leftist” Jury Clears Driver Who Towed ICE Vehicle
Following the acquittal of a Los Angeles tow truck driver charged with stealing an ICE vehicle, Stephen Miller condemned the verdict as “blatant jury nullification.” The driver, Bobby Nuñez, was found not guilty after being accused of theft of government property, despite being arrested after towing the vehicle during an immigration raid. This acquittal, along with others related to immigration cases, highlights the Justice Department’s struggles in proving intent or serious harm in such prosecutions, a point underscored by legal experts. This trend of acquittals and reduced charges in cases against anti-ICE protesters contrasts with the government’s aggressive approach to prosecuting those interfering with immigration enforcement, as demonstrated by the U.S. Attorney’s earlier, boastful statements about the Nuñez case.
Read More