DC Jury Nullification Even Protects International Gang Lords
For the second time in five months, a D.C. jury refused to convict Moises Rivera-Luna and Tokiro Ramirez on two racketeering conspiracy counts originating from a 2011 federal indictment (read: brought by the Obama DOJ, not Trump's) for criminal gang activity in Washington, D.C. and surrounding areas. It appears from the official court docket that the pair became fugitives before the case could go to trial back then.
But in March 2025, the Trump administration extradited Rivera-Luna from Guatemala to finally face his day in court; Ramirez had been extradited from Honduras in 2022.
"Rivera-Luna is alleged to be an international leader of MS-13 who was sending orders and advice to an MS-13 clique operating in the Washington area via cellular telephone calls from his prison cell in El Salvador," a March 2025 DOJ press release stated. "The indictment alleges that he and another alleged MS-13 leader... also incarcerated in El Salvador directed a coalition of MS-13 cliques to be formed in the Washington area. They advised local clique members that the coalition's aim was to seek and kill MS-13 members who were found to be cooperating with law enforcement officials." The indictment also accused the defendants of "narcotics distribution, extortion, [and] robberies."
Both men pleaded not guilty; the first trial began on December 2, 2025, just a few weeks after the shooting of two D.C. National Guardsmen, which resulted in the death of one, amid strong public opposition of the Guard's presence in the nation's capital. The start of the trial also coincided with nationwide anti-ICE protests including in Washington. And a group called "Free DC" at the time was hosting online seminars as part of its Trump 2.0 resistance operation, advising D.C. residents how to serve on juries to "influence outcomes and help create a more equitable legal process."
Free MS-13 to Show Trump!
Jury deliberations in the Rivera/Ramirez case began December 15, 2025. In a note to Judge Lamberth the following day, the foreperson informed the judge that despite "robust debate," the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. "One juror has expressed an inability to be impartial in their review of the facts and an unwillingness to continue deliberations in a productive manner," the foreperson disclosed.
Lamberth declared a mistrial on December 17, 2025. Vive la résistance!
Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, immediately sought to retry the pair. The second trial started on April; jury deliberations began on April 15. History, however, would repeat itself with a note from the jury foreperson just a few hours later, disclosing that the panel was "divided and unable to come to a consensus." They continued to debate but the situation worsened in the jury room:
Lamberth responded with bewilderment, admitting the situation raised profound legal questions. "It's an odd note because their disclosure of the split, assuming that's what it is, is disclosing jury misconduct that would entitle an inquiry into the misconduct of the juror and possible replacement and restart of jury deliberations," he told prosecutors and defense attorneys during an April 17 hearing. "A juror who says at the outset they will not have any problem with never agreeing on a verdict has a problem with me."
The judge released the jury for the weekend and asked both sides to research how to handle such an impasse. But the jury came back with another blow to the government on April 20:
Lamberth called the foreperson into the courtroom to ask what was going on. "For one of the counts, we were in agreement and then this morning, we weren't," the foreperson disclosed. "And then I know we have one juror who is very firm on their stance and doesn't really want to deliberate further on the others. But there are two different jurors, if that makes sense."
Lamberth declared another mistrial that day.
Pirro v Graves: Not Even Close...and Lamberth Knows Exactly Why
So despite breathless headlines declaring Pirro a loser in court once again, it appears the jury in both cases was prepared to convict but prevented from doing so by activist jurors who unabashedly declared their intention to sabotage a guilty verdict. (It is unclear why Lamberth, seeing this happen yet again in the case, did not make an Allen charge to the jury or open an investigation into the rogue jurors. But as part of the ongoing judicial coup against the president, Lamberth possibly wanted to hand the Trump administration another loss.)
Further, Lamberth knows exactly why he hasn't seen "one quite like this." Because it never happened prior to Trump winning the 2024 election and proceeding to use his DOJ, rather than being hijacked by saboteurs like the first time around, to pursue his policy agenda and round up bad guys, white collar and otherwise.
Compare the outcome of Pirro's cases before DC juries to the track record of Matthew Graves, her predecessor in the Biden administration. Not only did Graves secure a 100 percent conviction rate of January 6 defendants before DC juries, those guilty verdicts were returned in record time. Graves won easy convictions in the misdemeanor cases against Trump advisors Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, resulting in prison time for both.
But the same office now struggles to win convictions in those same courtrooms-and the only thing that has changed is the name on the letterhead. Not only have DC juries acquitted or declared a hung jury in at least seven federal cases since her tenure began (not including this one), the DC grand jury has rejected Pirro's pursuit of several indictments including charges against the so-called "Seditious Six."
And no one knows this massive disparity more than Judge Lamberth, who presided over dozens of J6 cases and sent many to federal prison. His feigned shock as to why juries--both grand and petit--are letting criminals off the hook is nothing more than a hollow attempt to pretend the judicial system in Washington, DC resembles anything close to fair, apolitical proceedings.
Lamberth, and Pirro, will get another chance to convict the dangerous gang lords next month. Is the third time a charm? Inside the grotesquely partisan courthouse sitting in the heart of the nation's capital, the answer is probably, no.
Posts
