Rejecting injustice: The jury’s role in a politicized justice system

Rejecting injustice: The jury’s role in a politicized justice system

“Several Customs and Border Protection veterans with whom I spoke—who value the quiet strength of professional modesty—think the photo [of Gregory Bovino] is ridiculous,” writes Nick Miroff.

In “Operation Midway Blitz” — an operation that was clearly scripted as a piece of political propaganda (including an action-movie soundtrack) rather than an exercise in law enforcement — Bovino cast himself in the starring role:


Mike Fox writes:

The acquittal of Brayan Ramos-Brito is more than just a legal victory for one individual; it is a powerful reaffirmation of the American jury system. After a federal jury in Los Angeles took just over an hour to acquit Ramos-Brito of a misdemeanor assault count, it became clear that the justice system—when it functions as the Framers intended—stands as a bulwark against government oppression.

The facts of the case, as they unfolded, are illustrative of a disturbing trend. Ramos-Brito, a U.S. citizen, was initially charged with a felony, which was later reduced to a misdemeanor. While four agents took to the witness stand, the government’s case rested heavily on the testimony of U.S. Border Patrol Sector Chief Gregory Bovino, the sole agent who claimed to have witnessed the alleged assault on Agent Jonathan Morales at a June protest.

Bovino is no run-of-the-mill agent, but a figure who has risen to prominence as a key leader in President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown. Bovino, with a deeply troubling track record, having previously been relieved of command and encouraged to retire, has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted. While no video showed the alleged assault of Agent Morales, widely circulated video evidence introduced by the defense directly contradicted the agents’ narrative, depicting Morales shoving Ramos-Brito backwards into an intersection. This kind of discrepancy, where the word of a federal agent is refuted with verifiable facts, has become increasingly common.

This case exemplifies an alarming pattern that has begun to emerge in both the Central District of California and Washington, D.C., where federal agents have adopted an “arrest first, ask questions later” approach, and federal prosecutors have relentlessly pursued charges with an “at all cost” mentality, even where evidence is lacking. The struggle of these federal prosecutors to secure indictments in politically charged cases suggests that grand juries—the very bodies designed to screen out baseless charges—are increasingly pushing back.

But the Ramos-Brito case did not end with a grand jury, it went to a trial jury. This is where the right to a jury trial, a right the Framers enshrined in the Constitution as a vital check on government power, became paramount. The acquittal underscores the jury’s role as not merely a fact-finder but also as the “conscience of the community.” Jurors, in this instance, were not convinced by the prosecution’s case. They saw through the allegations and, in doing so, sent a message that politically motivated prosecutions, absent clear evidence of wrongdoing by the accused, will not be tolerated. [Continue reading…]

Print this post
Comments are closed.