Historically, jury nullification–when a jury returns a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law–has been used to allow very bad people (e.g., murderers of Black people during the Jim Crow and segregation eras) to go free. It is certainly not an optimal state of affairs. But these instances of ‘grand jury nullification’ from Los Angeles are encouraging (boldface mine):

To bystanders at the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, it sounded as though U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli would not take no for an answer.

A prosecutor had the irate Trump administration appointee on speakerphone outside the grand jury room, and his screaming was audible, according to three law enforcement officials aware of the encounter who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

The grand jury had just refused to indict someone accused of attacking federal law enforcement officers during protests against the recent immigration raids throughout Southern California, two of the federal officials said.

It was an exceedingly rare outcome after a type of hearing that routinely leads to federal charges being filed.

On the overheard call, according to the three officials, Essayli, 39, told a subordinate to disregard the federal government’s “Justice Manual,” which directs prosecutors to bring only cases they can win at trial. Essayli barked that prosecutors should press on and secure indictments as directed by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, according to the three officials…

Although his office filed felony cases against at least 38 people for alleged misconduct that either took place during last month’s protests or near the sites of immigration raids, many have been dismissed or reduced to misdemeanor charges.

In total, he has secured only seven indictments, which usually need to be obtained no later than 21 days after the filing of a criminal complaint. Three other cases have been resolved via plea deal, records show.

The three officials who spoke to The Times on condition of anonymity said prosecutors have struggled to get several protest-related cases past grand juries, which need only to find probable cause that a crime has been committed in order to move forward. That is a much lower bar than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for a criminal conviction.

It sounds bad!

Legal experts said Essayli’s low number of indictments raised concerns about the strength of the cases he is filing.

Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who is now a partner at Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg, said the grand jury’s repeated rejection of cases was “a strong indication that the priorities of the prosecutor’s office are out of sync with the priorities of the general community.”

…But legal experts and some of Essayli’s prosecutors say he’s stretching legal limits to serve as President Trump’s attack dog in L.A.…

Meghan Blanco, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who serves as defense counsel to one of the protesters who is facing charges, said the cases are faltering in part because of unreliable information provided by immigration agents claiming to be victims.

“Frankly, they’re not deserving of prosecution,” she said. “What is being alleged isn’t a federal crime, or it simply did not happen.”

…According to an investigation summary of the incident reviewed by The Times, a U.S. Border Patrol officer claimed a man was screaming in his face that he was going to “shoot him,” then punched him. The officer said he and other agents started chasing the man, but were “stopped by two other males,” later identified as Mojica and Bryan Ramos-Brito.

Blanco said she obtained social media videos showing no such chase took place and presented them at Mojica’s first court appearance. The charges were soon dropped.

“The agent lied and said he was in hot pursuit of a person who punched him,” Blanco said. “The entirety of the affidavit is false.”

What worries me in all of this is that I don’t think there will be any accountability for this misconduct. At least in these cases, there is a name of the officer who did the misdeeds, but there’s no reason to think bearing false witness* will follow any of these officers around. And I doubt Essayli will face any consequences. The legal profession has shown a complete unwillingness to disbar attorneys over this, and, at worst, Essayli will be hired by a high-end firm.

At least, grand juries are doing what they can to stop these miscarriages of justice.

*I use the biblical term, not perjury, because one way the U.S. has gone wrong is through outsourcing notions of morality and ethical behavior to the legal system. No society can function over the long term when people, especially officials, are allowed to bear false witness. Leaving aside what local codes and the U.S. code allows, things simply can’t work when unethical behavior is allowed to flourish.