Does this get picked up by a higher court or are they free and clear?

flakrat said:

---

Does this get picked up by a higher court or are they free and clear?

---

Pretty hard to overrule a jury in the US.

In South Africa, etc., they can try again and again.

flakrat said:

---

Does this get picked up by a higher court or are they free and clear?

---

It was a federal court. What are they going to do? Try him in state court? In Washington?

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

flakrat said:

---

Does this get picked up by a higher court or are they free and clear?

---

Pretty hard to overrule a jury in the US.

In South Africa, etc., they can try again and again.

---

I'd say civil court, but they'd probably never see a any money.

flakrat said:

---

Does this get picked up by a higher court or are they free and clear?

---

For whatever charges were filed jeopardy is attached so the state cannot try again.

In these instances though additional untried charges could be filed. Often (maybe not in looneyville areas) prosecutors will limit the initial charges, then if they get a not guilty they can use the other crimes that were committed.

Also a possibility of federal vs state of that's in play here.

flakrat said:

---

Does this get picked up by a higher court or are they free and clear?

---

Jury acquittal so double jeopardy attached as to those specific crimes charged.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Sad to see juries following ideology instead of the law.

---

TBF, we don't know how the jury was instructed. Over the years of watching these trial streams, the jury instructions are usually more confusing than illustrative. If I am having a hard time following them I can only imagine how confused a layperson would be.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Sad to see juries following ideology instead of the law.

---

I sped up the footage to see if there was clear evidence of this guy obviously ramming ICE with a truck. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see it there. Before we conclude woke jury nullification gone amok instead of evidence did not support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, is there reviewable evidence to the general public to make an informed decision here?

Setting up the stage for the MN shooting to be able to convict the ICE agent that killed the carpet munching dyke that abandoned her kids to go protest and try to run people over.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

flakrat said:

---

Does this get picked up by a higher court or are they free and clear?

---

For whatever charges were filed jeopardy is attached so the state cannot try again.

In these instances though additional untried charges could be filed. Often (maybe not in looneyville areas) prosecutors will limit the initial charges, then if they get a not guilty they can use the other crimes that were committed.

Also a possibility of federal vs state of that's in play here.

---

If the state wanted to prosecute, it could do so regardless of a federal trial.

Under the doctrine of dual sovereignty, double jeopardy doesn't apply as the entities (state and fed) are separate. It also applies if another state charges someone with the same crime because it occurred in both states.

schmellba99 said:

---

Setting up the stage for the MN shooting to be able to convict the ICE agent that killed the carpet munching dyke that abandoned her kids to go protest and try to run people over.

---

Difference is the law; such a trial gets moved to federal court and the state would be SOL.

Malibu said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Sad to see juries following ideology instead of the law.

---

I sped up the footage to see if there was clear evidence of this guy obviously ramming ICE with a truck. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see it there. Before we conclude woke jury nullification gone amok instead of evidence did not support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, is there reviewable evidence to the general public to make an informed decision here?

---

Yeah its kind of hard to seriously comment on the outcome without being able to see the evidence at hand, etc.

aggiehawg said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Sad to see juries following ideology instead of the law.

---

TBF, we don't know how the jury was instructed. Over the years of watching these trial streams, the jury instructions are usually more confusing than illustrative. If I am having a hard time following them I can only imagine how confused a layperson would be.

---

On purpose or just bad judges? I've followed some of the recent stuff and with your help I see that sometimes the instruction is so obtuse, it's like tax code on steroids. Easily they confuse the jurors. I can see that here, but I also wonder if they are getting 6-8 plants in a jury to sway the remaining sheep just so they can go home.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Sad to see juries following ideology instead of the law.

---

For the neo-Marxists criminals are the victims.

Quote:

---

On purpose or just bad judges? I've followed some of the recent stuff and with your help I see that sometimes the instruction is so obtuse, it's like tax code on steroids. Easily they confuse the jurors. I can see that here, but I also wonder if they are getting 6-8 plants in a jury to sway the remaining sheep just so they can go home.

---

Honestly I think part of the problem is how pattern jury instructions come into being. Starts out with lawyers drafting them before approval for use. Then as they get challenged judges try to reform what are perceived issues and more legalisms are added creating more confusion. Too much legalese, where the placement of a comma or the use of "and" versus "or" can be crucial but laypeople won't know that distinction.

My .02.


ETA: When you look up a pattern jury instruction that has been codified into statute part of that legislative and case law history is included in a footnote form with citations to case after case after case with each tweaking something in the language of the instruction. That just adds more layers of legalese trying to put every possible permutation or exception into that instruction. Becomes a "if this then that, except when the this is really an it and then the that is to be disregarded." And that's a simple one.

Horn_in_Aggieland said:

---

SHOCKING: A Seattle jury has acquitted a Mexican illegal alien of four felony counts of assaulting federal officers with a deadly weapon after he rammed a truck and trailer into agents while they were attempting to arrest him in June 2025.

DHS Statement on Victor Vivanco-Reyes… pic.twitter.com/0R87HxMHpg

— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) January 16, 2026

I know I'm supposed to frame the discussion but I'm kind of speechless.

It's Seattle so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

---

Yet, Jan 6 is a 100% an insurrection, meanwhile....

Not sure what the defense argued, but if it was any sort of self-defense argument then I could see a sympathetic jury acquitting. The news media coverage of the Zimmerman and Rittenhouse cases gave a lot of leftists the very wrong idea of what self-defense actually is, but the media was never honest about those situations so they will just acquit anyone on their side who claims self-defense based on perceived fairness.

Illegal alien means now that he was"cleared" from these charges we can drop him off in Mexico now correct?

AtticusMatlock said:

---

Not sure what the defense argued, but if it was any sort of self-defense argument then I could see a sympathetic jury acquitting. The news media coverage of the Zimmerman and Rittenhouse cases gave a lot of leftists the very wrong idea of what self-defense actually is, but the media was never honest about those situations so they will just acquit anyone on their side who claims self-defense based on perceived fairness.

---

Heard it put this way on a Nate the Lawyer stream earlier today. There was a poll about this death and whether it was "justified" with no further explanation of what that meant. So people reading that question could answer on a moral justification as opposed to a legal justification.

And in the abstract, does interfering with ICE agents and fleeing the scene warrant being shot to death? (Of course, that doesn't apply to Babbitt who was trespassing but I digress.) Phrased that way, suggests something else entirely in how the question is framed. But about 80% of lawtubers agree this was a clean shoot based on self defense law and Graham v. Connor standards.

National divorce. Now.

How about Internal Combustion Engines?

HumbleAg04 said:

---

National divorce. Now.

---

I agree this is more than frustrating. I understand exactly how you feel but
Note the remainder of my response is general and not aimed at humbleAg


Say we get that divorce then Seattle, Portland, or Sacramento call China for help. Then what ?

Hint it gets 1861 level serious. I wonder if people realize just how dangerous this situation is ? "I can hear it now, But, but, it could never happen in America, never."

1861 says Duh.

trash. the news station in the clip interviews his wife and shows him rocking his baby, and she said the arrest was "devastating to their family"

DHS says this guy was a known drive-by shooter.

Before we balkanize and potentially murder each other on the basis of this jury decision, I am again asking if anyone has followed this case enough to render an educated opinion on whether this is jury nullification or the evidence was not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Malibu said:

---

Before we balkanize and potentially murder each other on the basis of this jury decision, I am again asking if anyone has followed this case enough to render an educated opinion on whether this is jury nullification or the evidence was not beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Whether the illegal is guilty or not, can you at least agree that he needs to be deported?

Is he here illegally? Yes, then he should be deported.

Malibu said:

---

Is he here illegally? Yes, then he should be deported.

---

Fair enough.