If I get trialed for advocating jury nullification, the jury in my trial would learn about it and perhaps if I'm sympathetic enough they'd also nullify the law and let me free.
you will still be called for repeatedly just to wait a couple hours and then be rejected and put back on the shortish list of people who haven't been on a jury
@@sandygehrmann6309 Do you have hours upon hours of time to throw away for some dude who did something semi-trivial? If you do, there is nothing wrong.
@@thomy2562 I don't, but I find it interesting to see how the legal process works, and they do pay quite well for jury duty in my city. Btw, I meant no offence by the question - no need to get aggressive :)
I just wrote in the margin that i've got a bachelor of science and am an extremely analytical person, and that they'd be wasting time and money having me come in. It's kinda douchey but I know this sort of thing is the opposite of an ideal jury for the lawyers. Havent been called back since.
My dad’s a lawyer and he’s a big believer in jury nullification, “the officer has the discretion to issue a warning or a ticket, the prosecutor can choose to prosecute or not, the jury (who is in the constitution) has the discretion to convict or not”
I remember once my teacher was talking about a time he was in a jury for a burglary trial. A man allegedly robbed a jewellery story of 30K worth of diamonds and was facing court. The thing is, the entire jury team felt sorry for the man because he had a family and was struggling. The jury all decided to simply deem him not guilty out of pity and so the man was released. Teacher didn’t know about nullification. All he did was practice it.
@@Jermain-cz4bh he should have been arrested, just because you're poor is no excuse for robbery, it doesn't make it right. Is it okay for me to kill a man and steal their money if im poor?
Jury: "We find the defendant, not guilty" Prosecutor: "But the defendant admitted guilt while in custody!" Jury: "Well we disagree with the defendant."
It's more of "well, we disagree that what the defendant admitted to is a crime." It actually happens sometimes in murder cases. The defendant claims self-defense, but the way things went down don't meet the legal criteria for lawful use of deadly force. But the jury is sympathetic that the defendant wasn't acting maliciously, so they vote to acquit.
"But the defendant admitted guilt while in custody." I HOPE the jury has heard about the Reid interrogation technique, which is widely used in the U.S. and is designed to extract confessions-false or not. The assumption of the Reid technique is that the guy you arrested is definitely guilty. So to the cops who use it, it's morally justified to get a confession by any means, even intense psychological pressure and a nonstop stream of lies. The problem is, sometimes the suspect isn't guilty. Too bad: the technique is so finely honed that he usually confesses anyway.
There are many documentaries that show that admitted guilt doesn't mean they're guilty, they almost torture them to get a confession and in part that's why there are so many plea bargain because they don't let them free beforehand.
Yeah, it's like for instance, the reason the accusating side for a, say, racism-related crime will try to keep anyone they suspect might be a racist out of the jury. Because he could think the accused did indeed commit the crime, but he's fine with him doing that and will try to keep him from being punished.
@@---cr8nw Worth pointing out that this is still nullification, even if the jury doesn't know the phrase 'jury nullification'. They're disagreeing that the legal criteria for lawful use of deadly force is a good law in this case.
I remember hearing how, after duels were banned/criminalized in Britain’s “Canadian” colonies, jurors would refuse to convict someone for engaging in a duel, if they felt the duel had been conducted “fair and square”.
Honestly if the duel had been between consenting adults, had been conducted "fair and square" and they hadn't put anyone else at risk through their actions I wouldn't convict either.
I once answered “yes” and then was asked to explain why, so without telling a full courtroom of possible jurors what jury nullification is i had to explain to the judge what jury nullification is. I haven’t received another jury notice since, its been 5 years.
@@OurFreeSociety yes really when you think about it. It is only a group of people that came together and made a set of rules that nobody but them agreed too that is no different than the the other group of people that came together and made their own rules without consulting anyone about them. Show me the difference. One just seems to have air of authority to it and the other is a group of lawyers 😂 yeah but i always thought what makes a government different from a gang and i realised it was the suit and ties alone that seperate them
I had to fill out a very long questionnaire when I was called to potentially be a juror in a class-action involving Microsoft. In the comments at the end, I said that I support the concept of jury nullification. Not that I intended to do it, just that I support it. They also asked my opinion of Bill Gates. I think Microsoft is garbage and Bill Gates is a crook for his predatory business practices, no matter how much he poses as a philanthropist now. I answered that honestly but politely and have not received a summons for jury duty since, over a decade, now.
For anyone wanting to use this info to get out of jury duty, you don't go in yelling "jury nullification!". They will likely charge you with contempt for that (because you are essentially saying that you will attempt to poison the jury). Instead, all you have to say is ""I won't say someone is guilty if I think it is an unjust law that they have broken, even if it is obvious that they committed the crime." The judge will know exactly what you mean, and they will dismiss you with no further questions.
The only reason to say that would be to get out of jury duty. If you feel strong enough about it to refuse to convict then you feel strongly enough about it to keep your mouth shut, it would be your duty to see an unjust law set aside since it is supposed to be a JUSTICE system.
You can just say "I might not agree with all laws in all circumstances" the others in the court will just think youre a hippy against laws, but the judge will know you mean nullification.
Why is every comment about people not wanting to be in the jury? Isn't it voluntary in America? Can you be forced to serve in the jury? That sounds like a terrible system
Yes, you can be forced to! It's called Jury Duty, not Jury Volunteering. Your employer is required to give you time off to serve, and the court pays you for your time. Basically if you're a citizen and you're residing in the states, you might get a letter saying you have to come in to court to serve duty on a jury. They actually call many more people than they need for a 12 person jury, and then they pick the 12 people that both sides can agree on. It's sort of necessary in a country that gives every citizen the right to trial by a jury of your peers -- there's no way you could get enough jurors to support that just by asking nicely!
@@exantiuse497 it is forced but they pay but this pay varies by country jurisdiction etc. In america this pay is next to nothing, especially because it doesn't really scale with the trial length in days.
*mathematician This would probably return false in a programming environment unless the first condition is true, as the second only only says "guilty".
You should not do it that way. The judge could hold that your behavior was deliberately disruptive and intended to poison the jury pool. Don't be STUPID. Ask to speak with the judge and prosecutor in private. The judge will likely ask whether you will nullify or whether you might based on the evidence presented at trial.
I Was going to close the video. But then he said "warning, this video may prevent you from ever doing jury duty." I then watched it 3 times for good measure.
When intelligent people stop serving on juries we end up with a broken system. How do you think we ended up where we are now? Because the intelligent people find a way to avoid jury duty.
It was easier for me - just living in a country that doesn't have one. I don't really get the reason behind it anyway. What do people know about laws when not studying it?
+Lugmillord Hence the reason why US court is often referred to as theater. It is just as, if not more important to play on the emotional biases of the jury, as it is making your case. This is why machiavellianism is such an infamous trait of lawyers.
+themurmeli88 did you know the original meaning of court was to dance and play. which is why we know them as courts today. in the old days it was alot more bullshit in terms of "fair" trials. and it was just back and forth "dancing" persay
In New Hampshire, the right of jury nullification is now a required part of the judge's jury instruction. Paraphrase "If you believe the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt but you think that a guilty verdict would bring about an unjust result, you may find the defendant not guilty".
I've always thought it should be someone else than "not guilty". Maybe splitting it up into "not proven", "not guilty", or... something that basically means unpunished.
+Pastlife17 Lol, you said, "It should be something other than 'not guilty.'" Then went on to say, "maybe something like 'not guilty...'" Contradictory?
@@beachcomber2008 the word choice isn't dual. The word "choice" can be used instead of the word "option" in the right context (this is the right context). If you've studied latin or speak a latin dominated language then I understand the confusion since the word **"alter"** implies duality, an alternative. Also, I'm not American
Life hack for avoiding jury duty: "I recuse myself from jury duty on the grounds that I'm aware of jury nullification and the statistical probability that jurors with such knowledge give biased verdicts."
In New Zealand a young man murdered his entire family. he was convicted and sent to jail. Over the coming years he ran a massive propaganda campaign framing his murdered father for the crime. finally he was given a retrial, new evidence emerged that collaborated the original conviction. never mind he just ran his defense ignoring that and continued to slur his fathers name. No evidence supported the father being the killer, but the doubt was set because under NZ law, dead people cannot be defended in court. The jury set the young man free then immediately rushed to his side and... hugged him. Impartiality. yay for legal systems, a game where he who rigs best, wins.
@@TheBelrick Which is why a jury of unskilled people is a bad idea. Having it in the 1800s was another thing, as only select few (white men) could get jury duty, and the idea was to protect these white men from everyone else (whom they had wronged, each women, child and person of colour).
I have always wanted to serve on a jury but, when asked exactly that question in voir dire, my response has always been that every reasonable person would circumvent the law if it went against their ethical/moral concerns, which is the foundation of the law.
The thing is, nullification can potentially work the other way too. While a jury could theoretically acquit someone because they believe that the law they've been charged with breaking is unjust, they could also convict someone just because they think that they look a bit dodgy or something
@@nimrodfilms5104 i don,t understand howe jury systeem works who says you be a jury member,not anny knolidge of law needet,ik heb geen idee hoe dat jurysysteem werkt.Hoe komt het tot stand,wie bepaalt dat?dat er een paar mensen met of zonder enig gebrek aan kennis van zaken. Besluiten of iemand ergens schuldig aan is. Kan iemand mij uitleggen hoe dat gaat ??
So, the thing about it supposedly being against those questions that people ask you before you're on the jury. Since nullification exists as a consequence of the law, it is based strictly on the law, and therefore if you answer that you are fine making decisions purely based on the law, you are not lying. Nullification is part of the law, just unintentional.
"Watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury" *_8,576,874 views_* Edit: Man, i even forgot i made this comment, just one thing, this is just a funny haha please dont overthink the joke. Thank godness i deactivated comment notifications.
It won't get you out of jury duty, just out of actually serving on a jury. You'll spend your time in the assembly hall, or repeatedly being called as a prospective juror and then rejected.
I feel like this was used in a case in Texas, where a man killed another who had sexually assaulted the first man's daughter. He did it, but the jury agreed it was justified.
Had nothing to do with nullification, had *everything* to do with the event being in TEXAS. If you want another example just look up Ron White and Texas Death Penalty.
I think @JOHN LARSEN is correct from this news snippet: "Under the law in the state of Texas deadly force is authorized and justified in order to stop an aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault."
Sooo I was called for Jury Duty in an affluent area of Southern California. Right before starting the Jury Questionaire, the judge explained Jury Nullification to us, and explained why we shouldn’t do it, and said “Now that you all know about it, you can’t use it as an excuse.” Word’s gotten out…
@@vcool He didn't say we can't nullify the law (though he said we shouldn't). He said we can't use it *as an excuse*, an excuse being "excused from jury duty".
@@ErzengelDesLichtes Tbh even if you answer perfectly truthfully that you intend to apply the verdict according to the law, and you know nothing about jury nullification, I would still expect a large percentage of people when confronted with a crime that was 'technically' against the law but which they perceived as completely justified would still say not guilty. So jury nullification probably goes on a decent amount just without getting much press, the fact you know about it probably doesn't alter how likely you are to do it very much. The only advantage to knowing about it is knowing that you can't get in trouble for doing it, which would maybe put off a few people, especially if the judge goes heavy on emphasising they have to give a verdict based on the law and only the law.
I can't forget about. Was called in for jury duty not long ago and discussed the subject with another potential juror. Not advocating it but I just mentioned it as a third option to the two that he mentioned. Though I would only use it if I thought someone were being unfairly treated (which is a rare case.)
3:03 In any trial which requires the jury to be unanimous, a single determined juror can hang the jury, causing a mistrial. Prosecutors might not want to spend the resources it would take to bring the defendant to court again, especially if they believe that the result will be another hung jury or even an acquittal. A single nullifying juror could be highly effective, for better or worse.
CGP Grey: Be warned, simply watching this video may prevent you from ever serving on a jury Me, law student from The Netherlands where there is no jury system: Oh no, what a nightmare!
These animated pictograms when discussing law are such a welcome relief. When I was young I decided to go to medical school rather than law school because of the latter's absence of picture books!
The first rule of jury nullification is: You do not talk about jury nullification. The second rule of jury nullification is: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT JURY NULLIFICATION.
the third rule of jury nullification: If you really really really think the law is completely stupid and Donald Trump made that law......... YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT JURY NULLIFICATION!!!!!
Only one person was ever actually charged like that (Laura Kriho) and it was overturned on appeal because the appeal's court rightly realized that the only reason she was charged was because she had advocated for a not guilty verdict, had it been a guilty verdict nothing would have happened to her. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant because if it even seemed to be true it would have chilling effects on future jurors who would be afraid they would be investigated if they gave a controversial not guilty verdict. The idea that someone can be convicted for perjury and not immediately struck down on appeal in this circumstance is theoretical.
I have been the victim of crime more than once. When I give the details, I'm always QUICKLY excused from jury duty. Neither side wants me around! Just as well. The American judicial system FAILED me multiple times ALL my life. I have NO CONFIDENCE in it.
Let me repeat - I was not taught the laws for the country I live in But I know how Henry the VIII killed his women Divorced beheaded died, divorced beheaded survived Glad that’s in my head instead of financial advice
i wasnt taught how to get a job, but i can remember disecting a frog. i wasnt taught how to pay tax, but i know loads about shakespears classics. i was never taught how to vote, they devoted that time to defining isotopes. i wasnt taught to look after my health, but mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell! i never had a lesson on current events, insted i studied the old american west. I was never taught what laws there are. I WAS NEVER TAUGHT WHAT LAWS THERE ARE! Let me repeat! i was never taught the laws for the country i live in but i know how henry VII killed his women! divorce, beheaded, died. divorce, beheaded, survived. glad thats in my head instead of financial advice! i was shown the wavelengths of different hues of light, but i was never taught my human rights. Apparently there’s 30! do you know them? I dont! why the hell cant we both recite them by rote? I know igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks, yet i dont know squat about trading stocks, or how money works at at all - where did it come from? How does the thing that motivates the world function? not taught to budget or diperse my earnings, i was too busy there rehearsing cursive. wasnt taught how much it costs to raise a kid or what an affidavit is, but i spent days on what the quadractic equation is! Negative b plus or minus the square root of b squared minus 4ac over 2a. Thats insane! that’s absolutely insane! they made me learn that over basic first aid, or how to recogniae the most deadly mental disorders, or diseases with preventable causes, or how to buy a house with a mortgage, if i could afford it, cause abstract maths seems more important than advice that would literally save thousands of lives! but its cool, cuz now i can tell you if the number of unnecessary deaths caused by that choice was prime. never taught present day practical medicines, but i was told what the ancient hippocratic method is. I’ve got a headace the pain is ceaseless! what should i take? umm... maybe try some leeches? can we discuss domestic abuse and get the facts, or how to help my depressed friend with their mental state umm.. no, but learn mental maths, cause you wont have a calculator with you everyday! they say its not the kids, the parents are the problem, well if you taught the kids to parent thats the problem solved then! al this advice. about using a condom, but none for when you actually have a kid when you want one! im only fluent in this language, for serious? the rest of the world speaks two, do you think im an idiot? they chose the solar over the political system so like a typical citizen now i dont know what i’m voting on! what polices exsit or how to make them change? Mais oui, je parle un peu de francais. So at 18 i was expect to elect a representative, for a sytem i had never ever ever been presented with! But i wont take it! ill tell everyone my childhood was wasted! ill share it everywhere how i was educated! And insist the pointless things! Don’t Stay in School! this took me like 30 minutes please like.
They had that in medieval Britain, either the defendant and the prosecutor would fight or a representative of their choice, they believed a higher deity would spare the innocent one
as a great man in court once said to the jury in WKUK - " wouldn't it be crazy if despite all the clear evidence, you still came with a not guilty verdict"
My dad and i were attacked at sams club They are still dancing around the courts and it happened in 2019 I forgot to re regester my truck last year on my dads bday I had a ticket in 19 days and was in court explaining in 25
+KarstenOkk No they can't, read any holy book and the gods give an unfair advantage to the one(s) they like the most, as does a king, a group of people and a judge. Even Yahweh kills children for making fun of baldness and the Greek and Egyptian gods are worse. At least it's clearly stated that Azathoth doesn't give two sheqels about the ordered universe.
+Travis7060312 Trial by combat makes the least possible amount of sense. If you're a successfully violent criminal then trial by combat essentially lets you ignore the law which conflicts with the entire concept of law in the first place. /endbuzzkillingtonrant
I was summoned 25 years ago, and was asked if there was a reason I shouldn't serve, and I told them I was a witness in a manslaughter trial, and fell asleep. I woke up during recess, and the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorneys were jokingly betting about the outcome, and that I had zero faith in lawyers, and all judges were lawyers once.
The fact that you can get arrested for informing people about their rights on a jury should tell you everything you need to know about our "justice" system. They don't want people knowing that their "laws" aren't decrees from the gods that no sane person would ever consider disobeying.
@@japr1223 How can you be lying to the court about jury nullification if the courts and lawyers don't ever bring up jury nullification? I can understand if they somehow prove you became a juror with the sole intent of nullifying the jury, but just the knowledge that jury nullification exists should not be grounds to prevent someone from serving on a jury. "You know too much about the law so therefore you can't be a juror" is kinda fucking dumb lmao.
Jury Person 1: Boy, this Case is Hard Jury Person 2: Ikr, what should we do? Jury Person 3: We have no choice, we have to commence in the Banned Law JP 2: No, don't say it! We might loose our Positions as Jury, turn BACK! JP 1: This is the only way out, Bill. We are left no choice. JP 3: N..... JP 2: Noo! JP 3: U...... JP 2: We can still stop this! Trenner, stop! JP 3: L...L.... JP 1: It's too late now, Bill. There's no way out. JP 2: But... but.... JP 3: I.... F..... JP 1: Come on, Bill. We've already started JP 3: I..... JP 1: C..... A..... JP 2: NOOOOOOO! JP 1,3: T.... I.... JP 2: I know how to Stop this! JP 1,3: Darn! Let's start all over.... N..... U...... JP 4: *I declare a Nullification!* JP 1,2,3: (_¬_¬)-
Wait, just watching this makes me void from serving jury duty??? ohhh nooooo i tooootally wanted to be on jury duty!!!!!! oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
So we call them, this is how it should go: "Yes I received this jury court order." "uh huh" "I know what Jury Nullification is." *Silence and then waiting music.* "I'm sorry sir, you don't seem to be eligible." "That's too bad."
I read a funny story about this guy who got summoned and he really didn't want to go. When it was his turn to answer the questions he asked if there was any chance the date could be postponed because there was a big White Power rally on the other coast that he was supposed to go. The lawyer of the afro-american plaintif dismissed him pretty quickly :-).
I just wear my "Justice: Regular or Extra Crispy?" T-shirt with the Electric Chair on it, and go in muttering "Lock 'em up and throw away the key! The reason we have so much crime today is because we always coddle the criminals! He wouldn't be here if he weren't guilty!" I've been called many times, but never served a day in my life.
I got a jury summons years ago and simply told them that I was usually the defendant in most cases and might be a little prejudiced. I also told them about my lawyer at one point sharing proprietary information with the prosecutor and then her being appointed to a judgeship. I was dismissed and haven't been contacted again 20 years and not counting.
Who would want to be on jury ??? U can help sombody out by helping then in court or against it other many ways than what they want or how they need it??
Just knowing and understanding the existence of jury nullification does not prevent you from being able to serve on a jury. It is when you actively have a plan to use it, that disqualifies you.
Jury nullification is pretty much the whole point of having a jury in the first place. This is why lawyers and Judges hate it as it was always about the people controlling justice not the courts. Judges in the US have way to much power via plea bargains despite jury nullification. Which is the real reason for so many coerced plea (overcharged cases) bargains by the way.
*too much And it can work the other way too. While nullification makes it possible to acquit someone if you believe that the law they've broken is unjust, it also makes it possible to convict them if you think they look a bit dodgy or have any other such prejudices
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz They can still do that with a guilty/not guilty system. Person looks dodgy and they don't like him or feel the law is unjust then they can all agree to guilty or not. Having a nullification puts that power in the people and says to the court and the general law that "we don't agree". Can it be used for bad? Yes but again so can guilty and not guilty. I also think it's better to have 3 choices rather than 2 because.
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz We, the people decide whether a law is "unjust". There's a reason why we cast votes in an election to pick people who'd make our laws. Moral inclination is the biggest driving factor, along with projected prosperity.
Darrell Brooks just dropped a hint he might inform the Jury about Jury Nullification the day before the closing arguments were supposed to start in the Christmas Parade trial in Wisconsin. The judge, who has been very patient with him considering how he has acted in court, about flipped out and told him under no circumstances is he to discuss Jury Nullification with the jury in his closing arguments.
In this case, though, he is just trying to get the jury to let him off because "he didn't intend to kill 6 people and injure 60+." He did tell jury about it anyway and he was still found guilty on all charges. He didn't want to take responsibility....murder beyond a doubt(crime was on video and had many witnesses) doesn't compare to a man stealing to feed his family. IMO
@@SrSeedOK BOOMER : destruction 100, damage 99,8%of enemys health, extremely efficient against boomers, cannot use uno reverse card, boomers usually comitt boom vaporizing radius around 16 kilometres or 10 miles
I know that in the state of Georgia, juries are REQUIRED to be instructed by the judge about jury nullification. Incidentally, it was due to jury nullification that Al Capone was never convicted of violating the Prohibition Act. The juries knew he had done it, but didn't think alcohol should have been illegal. As for the possibility of a third verdict, that exists in Scotland. There, the options are guilty, not guilty, and not proven. The difference between not guilty and not proven, is that with not proven, the charges can be reintroduced at a later date.
To be honest, jury nullification in "not guilty" form is the exact point of having the jury in the first place - making sure the law doesn't work the wrong way in a situation it didn't account for.
Everyone needs to take a moment to appreciate the fact CGP squeezes so much information into such a short amount of time, especially considering YT creators can make a lot more money when their videos are over 8 minutes long. A video like this would be SUPER easy to stretch out over 8 minutes simply by slowing it down. This person is literally choosing to earn less income for the same amount of work, simply for the sake of producing a higher quality product. We need more content creators like this.
We don't need content creators willing to sacrifice money for quality, we need a way to make money and quality connected in a way that making higher-quality videos is the best play even if you're just in it for the money.
Unless (maybe) everyone applying to jury duty intends to (mostly) nullify, no. And even then, it's a big maybe. But in reality, not everyone has a computer or phone, not everyone who has one knows about UA-cam, not everyone who knows about UA-cam knows about CGP Grey, not everyone who knows about CGP Grey knows about this video, not everyone who knows about this video has seen it, not everyone who has seen this video can apply for a jury, not everyone who applies for a jury will get accepted, not everyone who gets accepted will intend to nullify. (Every statement has all the previous ones as true)
No because jury nullification lays perfectly within the bounds of the law. It is obviously not illegal to nullify and thus you can confidently answer that you aren't intending to do anything outside the bounds of the law.
Maybe we can get a CGP Grey video on the game theory of why we should all want to encourage a strong sense of civic duty to serve on juries. Who do you want on *your* jury when you find yourself in the dock?
+ Alexandre Man Nobody wants. It is guaranteed to be one of the most stressful, boring, tedious, time consuming and reward-less thing you'll do in your life.
Hypothetical question: My courthouse has a lot of buildings (mostly attorney's offices) around it. A lot of those buildings have billboards for lease on the sides of them... What if I lease a billboard and have them put up a sign that explains what jury nullification is? Or simply... JURY NULLIFICATION: LOOK IT UP. How long until I start getting phone calls, nasty letters, or knocks on my door?
@From the Soil but that would be if THOSE jurors lied about not hearing about the nullification rule. but you make a decent point, would YOU get in trouble for someone else committing perjury? (is it still perjury if you're not testifying in the court about a case?)
If you keep your mouth shut and simply vote "No guilty" by saying that you agree with the defendant's lawyer then it's effectively the same thing. A verdict requires a unanimous vote, so if you make it a hung jury it's likely that the state won't choose to prosecute again unless it's some _overtly_ guilty-of-something-nasty defendant (then why aren't you voting guilty?) or a high profile case.
Ok so let me get this straight…if I go into a trial yelling “ jury nullification “ and get arrested for contempt then take that case to a jury trial where I get to testify about how I yelled jury nullification then I essentially just tainted the entire jury and would have to pick a new jury and just get myself stuck in a catch 22…huh…this sounds like fun. What if you could use this premeditated like you would have a shirt that said it on there or even like tatto it to your forehead so that when they give a description of you as the suspect they have to say the word and get the case thrown out that that way…
From what little I looked into this, it seems contempt of court in the US is the sole discretion of the Judge/Court and doesn't require a jury to enact or enforce (not legal advice).
It should be used to target laws and policies made by non elected officials based on "interpretation of the law and their powers to enforce it". Petty crime does need punishment, but community service and classes are better than jail and severe fines in petty crime cases. Nullification should be a tool of the people to strike down unconstitutional laws. The example of lynch mobs just tells me that Nullification cases should be instantly brought up to an appeals court just to discuss the legality of the nullified law, if the law was constitutional then the law stays on the books. Say the EPA declares extended exhaust pipes illegal for some arbitrary reason and justification. Jury nullifies, case goes to appeals, validity of the law and how it came to be are debated. If the law is declared unconstitutional, then the law is no longer enforceable. This also goes back to the debate between the Spirit of the law and the Word of the law. I'd argue that both Spirit and Word of the law should be broken in most cases to justify a guilty verdict.
My wife swayed a jury 25 years ago. The punishment was way out of line for the "crime". When they came back not guilty, the arresting officer was PISSED!
Jury nullification has been around for a long time. It's a natural consequence of the Constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy. And while in an extreme case it may be an ultimate safety valve it actually has very limited utility as an expression of the "Will of the People." [1] Jury nullification is merely the expression of a jury's disinclination for some reason to convict a person who quite probably is guilty of the crime charged. It is the natural consequence of the prohibition of double jeopardy and works because the prosecution may not appeal a jury verdict of acquittal -- even when under the evidence and law the defendant was unquestionably guilty. [2] Jury nullification doesn't change the law. It's not precedent. The law exists and continues to exist and can be applied in other cases. Jury nullification has only let a guilty person off. [3] For jury nullification to work the jury must acquit. That means that all the jurors necessary for acquittal must agree even when they have accepted based on the evidence that the defendant is guilty, and they must so agree even though they had been instructed by the judge that they are to apply the law as explained by him to the facts as they, the jury, find. While a single juror can generally cause a hung jury, a hung jury merely results in a mistrial; and the defendant can be retried. [4] Jury nullification only has meaning in criminal cases. A plaintiff can appeal an adverse verdict in a civil case. [5] Jury nullification works only to the extent that the prohibition on double jeopardy applies. But often one can be tried both on a state criminal charge and a federal criminal charge without violation double jeopardy, even if each charge is based on the same facts. You might remember the Rodney King incident in the early 1990s. The four police officers who were involved in his beating were charged under state law with various "excessive force" crimes, tried in state court and acquitted (well, one drew a hung jury as to one charge). They were subsequently tried in federal court on federal charges involving the same incident and facts, and two of the officers were convicted and sent to federal prison. [6] In theory of course reasons for an acquittal against the weight of the evidence and law could be noble. But historically there have been instances of jury nullification having clearly ignoble application, such as when at times in our history a jury of White men in some States would resolutely refuse to convict a clearly guilty White defendant of the murder of a Black person. [7] Jury nullification of course is possible only when there's a jury, i. e., when a case is being tried to a jury. But precedent comes from appellate courts deciding matters of law.
@@57thorns: It's impossible for the prosecution to appeal a jury verdict of acquittal. So if after a jury trial the jury comes in with a verdict of "not guilty" the case is over, and the prosecution can't appeal. There are times when the prosecution can appeal an adverse finding. For example, it's common for a defendant in a criminal case to initially by motion ask the judge to dismiss the case for one of a number of possible, legal reasons. If the judge does dismiss the case, the prosecution can appeal. There are other circumstances under which the prosecution could appeal an adverse ruling. But if the case goes to trial before a jury and the jury finds the defendant not guilty, the prosecution can't appeal.
Loved the reference to 12 Angry Men! I watched that movie in a Foundations of Law class, and I really enjoyed it. Not sure if I agreed with the jury’s verdict in the end, but it was certainly entertaining to watch them reach that decision.
That's actually one of my favourite parts of the story: the story was written in such a way that the viewer need not agree with the decision they come to. The story doesn't tell you if they were correct or not, and they come out with a few of the jurors still thinking he's guilty, so it's clearly up for interpretation. I think we need more stories like that, ones that force the viewer to come up with their own opinions instead of blindly following the protagonist
When you have police and courts. Playing win at any cost attitude. With the help of public defenders.in cases were your indigent.for poor and the disadvantage.plead em out. It's all about the $. It's anything but a fair and impartial Justice system.
Then you would condemn the innocent to suffer under 10 criminals. There is a limit; you have to accept that there will be some erroneous conviction rate or there won’t be convictions at all. If there are no convictions the end result is that disputes are settled by random acts of violence and nobody gets convicted for it.
@@debbieturner6346 That's because it's in the Declaration of Independence. Just like the original poster stated... You feel that? It's the realization of your own stupidity setting in...
@@tagndash01 nope. That's a disinformation agent. He knew exactly what he was doing....Hoping to mislead others from figuring out that no1 can lawfully force them to do anything they don't want to do.
As long as the laws remain in place which allow for jury nullification then any decision you make as part of a jury is a decision based strictly on the law.
If I get trialed for advocating jury nullification, the jury in my trial would learn about it and perhaps if I'm sympathetic enough they'd also nullify the law and let me free.
Yeah, don't count on it, Snoopy.
@@trombone113 1
Oh hell yeah! That's brilliant! What an excellent idea!The best catch-22 EVER!!! It's so parabolical, it's almost DIABOLICAL!!!!!
In all seriousness, can someone explain why wouldn't this work?
@@squid_cake It wouldn't go to a trial, definitely not by jury.
"Watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury"
I see no downside
you will still be called for repeatedly just to wait a couple hours and then be rejected and put back on the shortish list of people who haven't been on a jury
What's wrong with serving on a jury?
@@sandygehrmann6309 Do you have hours upon hours of time to throw away for some dude who did something semi-trivial? If you do, there is nothing wrong.
@@thomy2562 I don't, but I find it interesting to see how the legal process works, and they do pay quite well for jury duty in my city. Btw, I meant no offence by the question - no need to get aggressive :)
@@sandygehrmann6309 I see your point and understand why you would be interested. Sorry if i came off as agressive.
This is becoming very relevant in NYC
“Ever Heard of a little thing called jury nullification?” - Saul Goodman
*hand gesture*
The illuminatus trilogy.
Probably my favourite work of fiction.
Unless......
Operation mindfuck is real.
"...but be warned; simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury."
7 years later, can confirm. I have never been picked.
There's an extra watchlist only for this video. Everyone who watches it is on the list.
I paused so idk whether to watch it or not
@@siquod 🤣🤣🤣
@@siquod considering that there are 12 million views and most of them are coming from the US I think that to be not unlikely.
I just wrote in the margin that i've got a bachelor of science and am an extremely analytical person, and that they'd be wasting time and money having me come in. It's kinda douchey but I know this sort of thing is the opposite of an ideal jury for the lawyers. Havent been called back since.
I watch this on an annual basis to ensure I'm not selected for jury duty
It's time
My dad’s a lawyer and he’s a big believer in jury nullification, “the officer has the discretion to issue a warning or a ticket, the prosecutor can choose to prosecute or not, the jury (who is in the constitution) has the discretion to convict or not”
I remember once my teacher was talking about a time he was in a jury for a burglary trial. A man allegedly robbed a jewellery story of 30K worth of diamonds and was facing court. The thing is, the entire jury team felt sorry for the man because he had a family and was struggling. The jury all decided to simply deem him not guilty out of pity and so the man was released. Teacher didn’t know about nullification. All he did was practice it.
Should have jailed him
@@tonypringles2285 🤨
@@tonypringles2285 Yea. A crime is a crime
@Jon When he told the story the whole class just asked a thousand and a half questions before the bell rang.
@@Jermain-cz4bh he should have been arrested, just because you're poor is no excuse for robbery, it doesn't make it right. Is it okay for me to kill a man and steal their money if im poor?
Jury: "We find the defendant, not guilty"
Prosecutor: "But the defendant admitted guilt while in custody!"
Jury: "Well we disagree with the defendant."
It's more of "well, we disagree that what the defendant admitted to is a crime." It actually happens sometimes in murder cases. The defendant claims self-defense, but the way things went down don't meet the legal criteria for lawful use of deadly force. But the jury is sympathetic that the defendant wasn't acting maliciously, so they vote to acquit.
"But the defendant admitted guilt while in custody." I HOPE the jury has heard about the Reid interrogation technique, which is widely used in the U.S. and is designed to extract confessions-false or not. The assumption of the Reid technique is that the guy you arrested is definitely guilty. So to the cops who use it, it's morally justified to get a confession by any means, even intense psychological pressure and a nonstop stream of lies. The problem is, sometimes the suspect isn't guilty. Too bad: the technique is so finely honed that he usually confesses anyway.
There are many documentaries that show that admitted guilt doesn't mean they're guilty, they almost torture them to get a confession and in part that's why there are so many plea bargain because they don't let them free beforehand.
Yeah, it's like for instance, the reason the accusating side for a, say, racism-related crime will try to keep anyone they suspect might be a racist out of the jury. Because he could think the accused did indeed commit the crime, but he's fine with him doing that and will try to keep him from being punished.
@@---cr8nw Worth pointing out that this is still nullification, even if the jury doesn't know the phrase 'jury nullification'. They're disagreeing that the legal criteria for lawful use of deadly force is a good law in this case.
'Simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a Jury'.
*Clicks play button*
And that's why I watched this video.
WHO HAS TIME TO GET UP, LISTEN TO PEOPLE ARGUE FOR A COUPLE HOURS, THEN DECIDE WHO WAS RIGHT?
Liz Debate judges
*I am the law*
kemboy323 shut the fuck up😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 dude way too funny
*LAW*
I remember hearing how, after duels were banned/criminalized in Britain’s “Canadian” colonies, jurors would refuse to convict someone for engaging in a duel, if they felt the duel had been conducted “fair and square”.
Honestly if the duel had been between consenting adults, had been conducted "fair and square" and they hadn't put anyone else at risk through their actions I wouldn't convict either.
I once answered “yes” and then was asked to explain why, so without telling a full courtroom of possible jurors what jury nullification is i had to explain to the judge what jury nullification is. I haven’t received another jury notice since, its been 5 years.
Thy removed the other potential jurors??
The whole system is a mafia criminal system.
@@OurFreeSociety yes really when you think about it. It is only a group of people that came together and made a set of rules that nobody but them agreed too that is no different than the the other group of people that came together and made their own rules without consulting anyone about them. Show me the difference. One just seems to have air of authority to it and the other is a group of lawyers 😂 yeah but i always thought what makes a government different from a gang and i realised it was the suit and ties alone that seperate them
I had to fill out a very long questionnaire when I was called to potentially be a juror in a class-action involving Microsoft. In the comments at the end, I said that I support the concept of jury nullification. Not that I intended to do it, just that I support it. They also asked my opinion of Bill Gates. I think Microsoft is garbage and Bill Gates is a crook for his predatory business practices, no matter how much he poses as a philanthropist now. I answered that honestly but politely and have not received a summons for jury duty since, over a decade, now.
@@randystegemann9990 No place for the truth!
@@Isochest Truth is a three-edged sword.
For anyone wanting to use this info to get out of jury duty, you don't go in yelling "jury nullification!". They will likely charge you with contempt for that (because you are essentially saying that you will attempt to poison the jury). Instead, all you have to say is ""I won't say someone is guilty if I think it is an unjust law that they have broken, even if it is obvious that they committed the crime." The judge will know exactly what you mean, and they will dismiss you with no further questions.
The only reason to say that would be to get out of jury duty. If you feel strong enough about it to refuse to convict then you feel strongly enough about it to keep your mouth shut, it would be your duty to see an unjust law set aside since it is supposed to be a JUSTICE system.
@@edwardgoodson7628 thats. PERJURY. Which is a CRIME.
Welp... Time to forget this when i eventually do get Jury Duty
@@theunholysmirk Power in politics does weird things to people. Even something as low-strung as jury duty.
You can just say "I might not agree with all laws in all circumstances" the others in the court will just think youre a hippy against laws, but the judge will know you mean nullification.
"simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury"
Oh noooo
Don't tell meeeee
That'd be the woooorst
Space dandy is the best
Why is every comment about people not wanting to be in the jury? Isn't it voluntary in America? Can you be forced to serve in the jury? That sounds like a terrible system
Yes, you can be forced to! It's called Jury Duty, not Jury Volunteering. Your employer is required to give you time off to serve, and the court pays you for your time. Basically if you're a citizen and you're residing in the states, you might get a letter saying you have to come in to court to serve duty on a jury. They actually call many more people than they need for a 12 person jury, and then they pick the 12 people that both sides can agree on. It's sort of necessary in a country that gives every citizen the right to trial by a jury of your peers -- there's no way you could get enough jurors to support that just by asking nicely!
@@exantiuse497 it is forced but they pay but this pay varies by country jurisdiction etc. In america this pay is next to nothing, especially because it doesn't really scale with the trial length in days.
Oh nooooo my finger slipped an i am learning all about this thing
"Be warned, simply watching may prevent you from ever being on a jury."
12 million people:
Judge: "does the jury find them innocent or guilty?"
Jury: "yes."
and that's why they should ask if you're a programmer.
Pretentious Asshole I also live in yes town
♥Ms. PikaShiba156♥ i'm a fan of Yes as well
*mathematician
This would probably return false in a programming environment unless the first condition is true, as the second only only says "guilty".
Ha, boolean logic!
Lawyer: "You are required by law to serve if you get chosen".
Me: "No thanks. I'm busy. Jury Nullification".
Lawyer: "Have a good day, sir."
Does that work, I got jury duty in 2 weeks. and you say that during voir dire right? not in "excuses" in the ejuror site that you type in.
You should not do it that way. The judge could hold that your behavior was deliberately disruptive and intended to poison the jury pool. Don't be STUPID. Ask to speak with the judge and prosecutor in private. The judge will likely ask whether you will nullify or whether you might based on the evidence presented at trial.
Okaythen001: So how did it (jury duty) go?
Didn't get picked
@@okaythen001 Win?
I Was going to close the video. But then he said "warning, this video may prevent you from ever doing jury duty."
I then watched it 3 times for good measure.
And commented a couple times for good measure
Can it prevent me from being drafted as well?
I hope so because from my brother’s experiences in basic courts it’s either quick or boring as HELL
When intelligent people stop serving on juries we end up with a broken system. How do you think we ended up where we are now? Because the intelligent people find a way to avoid jury duty.
666th like :)
Can't wait to get called for jury duty and say the phrase "jury nullification, bottom text"
Later at your contempt of court trial: "My client only did it for the memes, Your honour"
Write down and pass it around just watch out for cameras🐱
@@ThatGuyNicho based
@@ThatGuyNicho The Jury: "wait what's the crime that was committed?"
Prosecutor: "uhhh we can't tell you"
*lips pressed against mic" I was radicalized by memes, your honor!
Thanks for getting me out of jury duty.
It was easier for me - just living in a country that doesn't have one. I don't really get the reason behind it anyway. What do people know about laws when not studying it?
+Lugmillord Hence the reason why US court is often referred to as theater. It is just as, if not more important to play on the emotional biases of the jury, as it is making your case. This is why machiavellianism is such an infamous trait of lawyers.
He warned you.
+themurmeli88 did you know the original meaning of court was to dance and play. which is why we know them as courts today. in the old days it was alot more bullshit in terms of "fair" trials. and it was just back and forth "dancing" persay
Karl cos Hmmm, well it sounds fitting.
"Watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury"
*Doubles video speed*
ElBrandoTV
😂
ElBrandoTV no jury duty? Yes please!
No ×0.25 gives them more time to notice.
I'm going to start a viral email that posts this video across the whole planet :o)
Everyone share this video on every social media platform *including myspace*
Aw yeah man I can't wait to go onto the jury and just yell
*N U L L. B O O Y A*
YES, DO IT
Suction cup man would totally do that if he knew about it.
The suction cup man is 10/10 with this comment
*B U L L. N O O Y A*
I mean he’s already been in court
Luigi Mangione likes this
In New Hampshire, the right of jury nullification is now a required part of the judge's jury instruction. Paraphrase "If you believe the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt but you think that a guilty verdict would bring about an unjust result, you may find the defendant not guilty".
I love my state just a bit more now
Makes me like living in the state that everyone forgets even more now.
I've always thought it should be someone else than "not guilty". Maybe splitting it up into "not proven", "not guilty", or... something that basically means unpunished.
No, it isn't. They passed that law in 2012, but in 2014 the NH Supreme Court gutted it.
Wikipedia -> Jury Nullification -> State laws
+Pastlife17 Lol, you said, "It should be something other than 'not guilty.'" Then went on to say, "maybe something like 'not guilty...'" Contradictory?
In a jury:
"Well, there's only two choices"
CGP Grey from a dark corner:
*Actually there's three*
BleueBrade actually there’s four
Aaron Long you can say not guilty and think guilty or you can say guilty and think not guilty
A choice has two/three/maybe more options. It's a choice. It isn't TWO choices. Americans haven't *_learned_* English. Instead they *_parrot_* it.
@@beachcomber2008 the word choice isn't dual. The word "choice" can be used instead of the word "option" in the right context (this is the right context). If you've studied latin or speak a latin dominated language then I understand the confusion since the word **"alter"** implies duality, an alternative. Also, I'm not American
beachcomber2008 in a casual context it can be used as either.
Life hack for avoiding jury duty: "I recuse myself from jury duty on the grounds that I'm aware of jury nullification and the statistical probability that jurors with such knowledge give biased verdicts."
In New Zealand a young man murdered his entire family. he was convicted and sent to jail. Over the coming years he ran a massive propaganda campaign framing his murdered father for the crime. finally he was given a retrial, new evidence emerged that collaborated the original conviction. never mind he just ran his defense ignoring that and continued to slur his fathers name. No evidence supported the father being the killer, but the doubt was set because under NZ law, dead people cannot be defended in court. The jury set the young man free then immediately rushed to his side and... hugged him. Impartiality.
yay for legal systems, a game where he who rigs best, wins.
Bel Rick I know of a disgusting story of a creep who stole from his boss, and when confronted he sued her, won and then burned down the business.
@@は私です彼の名前 Its a tragedy for sure.
@@TheBelrick Which is why a jury of unskilled people is a bad idea. Having it in the 1800s was another thing, as only select few (white men) could get jury duty, and the idea was to protect these white men from everyone else (whom they had wronged, each women, child and person of colour).
@@TheBelrick Corroborated, not collaborated.
I have always wanted to serve on a jury but, when asked exactly that question in voir dire, my response has always been that every reasonable person would circumvent the law if it went against their ethical/moral concerns, which is the foundation of the law.
well said
The thing is, nullification can potentially work the other way too. While a jury could theoretically acquit someone because they believe that the law they've been charged with breaking is unjust, they could also convict someone just because they think that they look a bit dodgy or something
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz Can we charge a politician with breach of promise?
@@scottmalchow3428 If a politician promised to do something really bad then I'd actually be quite happy for them not to keep that promise!
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz I fell like I am experiencing deja vu...like that was discussed during the video, or something.
Yo i just wanted to sit down and watch some youtube and now i've potentially implicated myself in just 4 minutes
Welcome to Grey, this is what he does
@@Dr_mafario yup also give you useless useful knowledge
4 minutes? More like less than 30 seconds.
@@banan4990 porI
Lmao.
I'm sure they're not worried about you, bub.
I demand trial by combat, my champion will be the judge himself
You would be held in contempt of court and locked up even longer.
I will PAY to see you try that.
Your wish is granted, but the judge is a demon lovechild of Chuck Norris and Vin Diesel.
You have to convince your champion to accept
taking ace attorney to a new level
Judge: "Why can't you serve as a juror?"
Me: "I can't tell you. If I did, I'd get arrested."
Judge: "Cool. See ya!"
Ben From Gulf City no, you would say I plead the 5th
Usa systeme of in no justice is as ill as can be, Bob Dylan Hurricane
The arrests are just for trying to convince jurors to nullify while a case is ongoing and they're often overturned on First Amendment grounds anyway.
a better one would have been
judge: why cant you serve as a juror?
me: I cant tell you. if I did, id get arrested
judge: ayyyyy
me: ayyyyyy
@@nimrodfilms5104 i don,t understand howe jury systeem works who says you be a jury member,not anny knolidge of law needet,ik heb geen idee hoe dat jurysysteem werkt.Hoe komt het tot stand,wie bepaalt dat?dat er een paar mensen met of zonder enig gebrek aan kennis van zaken. Besluiten of iemand ergens schuldig aan is. Kan iemand mij uitleggen hoe dat gaat ??
So, the thing about it supposedly being against those questions that people ask you before you're on the jury. Since nullification exists as a consequence of the law, it is based strictly on the law, and therefore if you answer that you are fine making decisions purely based on the law, you are not lying. Nullification is part of the law, just unintentional.
"Watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury"
*_8,576,874 views_*
Edit: Man, i even forgot i made this comment, just one thing, this is just a funny haha please dont overthink the joke.
Thank godness i deactivated comment notifications.
I think at that point the view already counted in though..
8.7M***
It won't get you out of jury duty, just out of actually serving on a jury. You'll spend your time in the assembly hall, or repeatedly being called as a prospective juror and then rejected.
Even if they had stopped watching as soon as they heard those words, the view count would be unaffected though, it would have still counted as a view.
Not everyone watching the video is living in a country, that has juries.
I feel like this was used in a case in Texas, where a man killed another who had sexually assaulted the first man's daughter. He did it, but the jury agreed it was justified.
Had nothing to do with nullification, had *everything* to do with the event being in TEXAS. If you want another example just look up Ron White and Texas Death Penalty.
Amen
.
All pedophiles should be put to death
I think @JOHN LARSEN is correct from this news snippet:
"Under the law in the state of Texas deadly force is authorized and justified in order to stop an aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault."
"Hello, you have been chosen to serve a jury-"
"I once watched a CPG Grey video about nullification."
"..."
Gets arrested
@@jon-z6i for typo
Sooo I was called for Jury Duty in an affluent area of Southern California. Right before starting the Jury Questionaire, the judge explained Jury Nullification to us, and explained why we shouldn’t do it, and said “Now that you all know about it, you can’t use it as an excuse.”
Word’s gotten out…
Oh but the jury can use it. It is their right. The jury has no obligation here to listen to the judge.
@@vcool He didn't say we can't nullify the law (though he said we shouldn't). He said we can't use it *as an excuse*, an excuse being "excused from jury duty".
@@ErzengelDesLichtes Tbh even if you answer perfectly truthfully that you intend to apply the verdict according to the law, and you know nothing about jury nullification, I would still expect a large percentage of people when confronted with a crime that was 'technically' against the law but which they perceived as completely justified would still say not guilty. So jury nullification probably goes on a decent amount just without getting much press, the fact you know about it probably doesn't alter how likely you are to do it very much. The only advantage to knowing about it is knowing that you can't get in trouble for doing it, which would maybe put off a few people, especially if the judge goes heavy on emphasising they have to give a verdict based on the law and only the law.
i will not speak about this EVER. mostly because i'll forget probably.
lozer on youtube you should share this with everyone to promote free speech.
This is so true
Can confirm, watched this video quite a while back and forgot what it was about.
thats a big mood
I can't forget about. Was called in for jury duty not long ago and discussed the subject with another potential juror. Not advocating it but I just mentioned it as a third option to the two that he mentioned. Though I would only use it if I thought someone were being unfairly treated (which is a rare case.)
"But be warned: simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury"
*Insert Homer "Woohoo" here*
Remember all his pairs of glasses?
Fr like how's this a warning, who WANTS to be on jury duty? Lmao
The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races.
@@ArchHippy Hah omg that was a great line, Homer can be so funny
Grey: *This video will prevent you from serving in a jury*
*loops video for 10 hours*
That's kinda racist
......how?
@@yellowblack4882 how
Racist against Greys, I guess...
Yellow Black how
3:03 In any trial which requires the jury to be unanimous, a single determined juror can hang the jury, causing a mistrial. Prosecutors might not want to spend the resources it would take to bring the defendant to court again, especially if they believe that the result will be another hung jury or even an acquittal. A single nullifying juror could be highly effective, for better or worse.
CGP Grey: Be warned, simply watching this video may prevent you from ever serving on a jury
Me, law student from The Netherlands where there is no jury system: Oh no, what a nightmare!
In India they abolished the jury system after a jury nullification(of 8:1 not guilty) and later convicted the person.
Yeah, alot easier for politicians to get judges to do what they want here.
As a french person I entirely relate to this
@@RK-cj4oc high profile cases dont have a jury anyway nor they have a saying in the interpretation of the law
@@alice_in_wonderland42 oh wow we had one, interesting I didn't know this.
Those three dots after the two laws means therefore. I learned that in my advanced maths in my Cs program. Nice
learned this in 8th grace from a VERY nerdy teacher but it’s so helpful!
I learned it weirdly enough in Rhetoric
Does that mean Predator's laser weapon shoots "therefore" at people.
I learned it in 8th grade maths
We use it everyday in maths class from 7 or 6 onwards.
Gonna get a Null Booya shirt for my next yearly jury duty.
+1
Saaaaaaammmmmmmmeeeeeeee
+++
David Martin If you watched the video, you won't have jury duty.
These animated pictograms when discussing law are such a welcome relief. When I was young I decided to go to medical school rather than law school because of the latter's absence of picture books!
The first rule of jury nullification is: You do not talk about jury nullification.
The second rule of jury nullification is: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT JURY NULLIFICATION.
You just did it twice
So jury nullification is fight club? ;P
the third rule of jury nullification: If you really really really think the law is completely stupid and Donald Trump made that law.........
YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT JURY NULLIFICATION!!!!!
ah I do love Fight Club references.
Presidents don't make laws.
So if it's perjury, what happens when you're being tried for perjury and you must inform the jury of jury nullification?
MIND BLOWN!
Inception 2
Only one person was ever actually charged like that (Laura Kriho) and it was overturned on appeal because the appeal's court rightly realized that the only reason she was charged was because she had advocated for a not guilty verdict, had it been a guilty verdict nothing would have happened to her. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant because if it even seemed to be true it would have chilling effects on future jurors who would be afraid they would be investigated if they gave a controversial not guilty verdict.
The idea that someone can be convicted for perjury and not immediately struck down on appeal in this circumstance is theoretical.
EmperorPenguin has
Oh, loophole! 😂
4,235,843 of us are no longer able to serve on a jury.
I would probably forget that though as the question is so strange that you can't understand it
Your all probably too young anyway
Albino Peacock Sorry for my spelling mistake I was typing on my phone.
the views are from all over the world. we dont even have jouris in most of europe
Good its not like I wanted to be part of the Jury.
“So I understand that courts have their own n word”
N*ll
Let them know that people are owned by that which they can't talk name
🅱️ullification😂😂😂🤣🤣😂
woodlefoof2 if you have 50% Native American blood by dna certificate you’ll never be called to jury duty!
i have to serve on a jury so i stopped the video, but i might just say that, if anyone asks *ThE eNtIrE gRoUp Of JuRoRs* if we have any questions...😈
I have been the victim of crime more than once. When I give the details, I'm always QUICKLY excused from jury duty. Neither side wants me around! Just as well. The American judicial system FAILED me multiple times ALL my life. I have NO CONFIDENCE in it.
So... In other words, if you're on a jury, ALWAYS yell NULLIFY in order to go home early. Good to know
Or make shure as long as not breaking any law in your way of finding loopholes such as yes to leagely go home instead of surving on the jury.
@@shorelockhomes943 sure*
When I had jury duty. I did whatever it took to drag the process on.
Sitting on my ass getting paid to do jury duty is easier than my regular day job
Sop Lim You must be paid didley squat in your regular job.
Tomaz ... I’m on $100,000 plus a year working underground in mines, in central Australia.
It’s hard work. Jury duty is easier than my regular job
I WAS NEVER TAUGHT WHAT LAWS THERE ARE,
*I WAS NEVER TAUGHT WHAT LAWS THERE ARE*
Let me repeat - I was not taught the laws for the country I live in
But I know how Henry the VIII killed his women
Divorced beheaded died, divorced beheaded survived
Glad that’s in my head instead of financial advice
boyinaband lol
i wasnt taught how to get a job, but i can remember disecting a frog.
i wasnt taught how to pay tax, but i know loads about shakespears classics.
i was never taught how to vote, they devoted that time to defining isotopes.
i wasnt taught to look after my health, but mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell!
i never had a lesson on current events, insted i studied the old american west.
I was never taught what laws there are. I WAS NEVER TAUGHT WHAT LAWS THERE ARE!
Let me repeat! i was never taught the laws for the country i live in but i know how henry VII killed his women!
divorce, beheaded, died. divorce, beheaded, survived. glad thats in my head instead of financial advice!
i was shown the wavelengths of different hues of light, but i was never taught my human rights.
Apparently there’s 30! do you know them? I dont! why the hell cant we both recite them by rote?
I know igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks, yet i dont know squat about trading stocks,
or how money works at at all - where did it come from? How does the thing that motivates the world function?
not taught to budget or diperse my earnings, i was too busy there rehearsing cursive.
wasnt taught how much it costs to raise a kid or what an affidavit is, but i spent days on what the quadractic equation is!
Negative b plus or minus the square root of b squared minus 4ac over 2a.
Thats insane! that’s absolutely insane! they made me learn that over basic first aid, or how to recogniae the most deadly mental disorders,
or diseases with preventable causes, or how to buy a house with a mortgage, if i could afford it, cause abstract maths seems more important
than advice that would literally save thousands of lives! but its cool, cuz now i can tell you if the number of unnecessary deaths caused by that choice was prime. never taught present day practical medicines, but i was told what the ancient hippocratic method is.
I’ve got a headace the pain is ceaseless! what should i take? umm... maybe try some leeches?
can we discuss domestic abuse and get the facts, or how to help my depressed friend with their mental state
umm.. no, but learn mental maths, cause you wont have a calculator with you everyday!
they say its not the kids, the parents are the problem, well if you taught the kids to parent thats the problem solved then!
al this advice. about using a condom, but none for when you actually have a kid when you want one!
im only fluent in this language, for serious? the rest of the world speaks two, do you think im an idiot?
they chose the solar over the political system so like a typical citizen now i dont know what i’m voting on!
what polices exsit or how to make them change? Mais oui, je parle un peu de francais.
So at 18 i was expect to elect a representative, for a sytem i had never ever ever been presented with!
But i wont take it! ill tell everyone my childhood was wasted! ill share it everywhere how i was educated!
And insist the pointless things! Don’t Stay in School!
this took me like 30 minutes please like.
Markogames123 no you copy and pasted.
LMAO 😂😂😂😂
I say we make a third choice: Thunderdome. Two men enter, one man leaves. e_e
dantespimp
Lol
More simpley: you may invoke trial by combat as a plea, but no champions and your opponent is fully armed police officer while you get nothing.
RadiusZero I love you.
RadiusZero i dont get it
They had that in medieval Britain, either the defendant and the prosecutor would fight or a representative of their choice, they believed a higher deity would spare the innocent one
as a great man in court once said to the jury in WKUK - " wouldn't it be crazy if despite all the clear evidence, you still came with a not guilty verdict"
Rest in Peace Trevor Moore
It would be crazy, they'd probably make a movie about it and want to interview everyone on the jury.
"As long as courts are fair..." Well, that's an assumption, innit?
Mike, that word fair is not in any court.
Like trying to use a football at a baseball game.
My dad and i were attacked at sams club
They are still dancing around the courts and it happened in 2019
I forgot to re regester my truck last year on my dads bday I had a ticket in 19 days and was in court explaining in 25
As long as your life depends on the judge's mood that day and what he thinks about you
Courts can never be fair
@@ronloc3309 change judges to robot without emotion
Trial by combat, no other way makes sense.
+Travis7060312 The people? Judges? (scoffs) Kings!? Only the gods can decide justly and fairly.
+KarstenOkk No they can't, read any holy book and the gods give an unfair advantage to the one(s) they like the most, as does a king, a group of people and a judge. Even Yahweh kills children for making fun of baldness and the Greek and Egyptian gods are worse. At least it's clearly stated that Azathoth doesn't give two sheqels about the ordered universe.
Azurath100 How dare you question the just and true plans of the gods?
+Travis7060312 Trial by combat makes the least possible amount of sense. If you're a successfully violent criminal then trial by combat essentially lets you ignore the law which conflicts with the entire concept of law in the first place. /endbuzzkillingtonrant
+Travis7060312 Final Destination, Fox Only, No items.
I was summoned 25 years ago, and was asked if there was a reason I shouldn't serve, and I told them I was a witness in a manslaughter trial, and fell asleep. I woke up during recess, and the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorneys were jokingly betting about the outcome, and that I had zero faith in lawyers, and all judges were lawyers once.
The fact that you can get arrested for informing people about their rights on a jury should tell you everything you need to know about our "justice" system. They don't want people knowing that their "laws" aren't decrees from the gods that no sane person would ever consider disobeying.
"You may not be able to serve on a jury"
Oh no, how terrible.
Karen WILL serve on a jury. Do you want your fate decided by Karens?
@@noahsmith4505 Participating in the """justice""" system is such a typically Karen behavior
@@bograham6221 Maybe so but this is the system we have here and now
Third choice is Trial by Combat
Just like in Mechwarrior
I really like that you know that! I used to be all about Battletech. Pretty cool universe.
Fourth choice is taking the law into your own hands.
If you're referring to GoT, not anymore hehe
+IceAge actually it originated from the medieval period in England
Being arrested for knowledge sounds like suppression.
No technically your being arrested for lying to the court. But it is definitely suppression.
@@japr1223 How can you be lying to the court about jury nullification if the courts and lawyers don't ever bring up jury nullification? I can understand if they somehow prove you became a juror with the sole intent of nullifying the jury, but just the knowledge that jury nullification exists should not be grounds to prevent someone from serving on a jury. "You know too much about the law so therefore you can't be a juror" is kinda fucking dumb lmao.
@@virtualdreams7240 I didn't make the rules. Apparently they ask you before you're selected.
It sounds like suppression because it is lol
If I had a jury that Didn't know about jury nullification it WOULDN'T be a jury of my PEERS
"This video may prevent you from ever serving on Jury"
What a tragedy. Oh no
Person in Jury: "How about Nulli-
Judge: *(Cocks gun behind stand)* "Don't even *Think* about it. . ."
Jury Person 1: Boy, this Case is Hard
Jury Person 2: Ikr, what should we do?
Jury Person 3: We have no choice, we have to commence in the Banned Law
JP 2: No, don't say it! We might loose our Positions as Jury, turn BACK!
JP 1: This is the only way out, Bill. We are left no choice.
JP 3: N.....
JP 2: Noo!
JP 3: U......
JP 2: We can still stop this! Trenner, stop!
JP 3: L...L....
JP 1: It's too late now, Bill. There's no way out.
JP 2: But... but....
JP 3: I.... F.....
JP 1: Come on, Bill. We've already started
JP 3: I.....
JP 1: C..... A.....
JP 2: NOOOOOOO!
JP 1,3: T.... I....
JP 2: I know how to Stop this!
JP 1,3: Darn! Let's start all over.... N..... U......
JP 4: *I declare a Nullification!*
JP 1,2,3: (_¬_¬)-
@@cerebrummaximus3762 *lose
You in Georgia ain't you?
@@PepperDarlington Na, ironically I wrote that while in Cali, long story short I am replying now from Texas 😏
@@jonathanlewis6146 don't vote democrat like most do in cali
Wait, just watching this makes me void from serving jury duty???
ohhh nooooo i tooootally wanted to be on jury duty!!!!!!
oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
time off work though! i just got summoned yesterday... : (
So we call them, this is how it should go:
"Yes I received this jury court order."
"uh huh"
"I know what Jury Nullification is."
*Silence and then waiting music.*
"I'm sorry sir, you don't seem to be eligible."
"That's too bad."
I read a funny story about this guy who got summoned and he really didn't want to go. When it was his turn to answer the questions he asked if there was any chance the date could be postponed because there was a big White Power rally on the other coast that he was supposed to go. The lawyer of the afro-american plaintif dismissed him pretty quickly :-).
Well if you're an honest dude then you still can. Just give the courts no reason to suspect you may not be honest, especially if you are honest!
I just wear my "Justice: Regular or Extra Crispy?" T-shirt with the Electric Chair on it, and go in muttering "Lock 'em up and throw away the key! The reason we have so much crime today is because we always coddle the criminals! He wouldn't be here if he weren't guilty!"
I've been called many times, but never served a day in my life.
“Watching will likely stop you from ever getting on the jury ever”
I see this as an absolute win
@@henrycrabs3497 crab
@CrabApples Bodaciously Bitter Fruit's crab
@@IDontLikeHandIes crab
@@henrycrabs3497 dead crab
delicious dead crab
I got a jury summons years ago and simply told them that I was usually the defendant in most cases and might be a little prejudiced. I also told them about my lawyer at one point sharing proprietary information with the prosecutor and then her being appointed to a judgeship. I was dismissed and haven't been contacted again 20 years and not counting.
“Watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury”
ReMoVe FrOm WaTcH hIStOrY
Who would want to be on jury ??? U can help sombody out by helping then in court or against it other many ways than what they want or how they need it??
SHOCK PROOF buzzkill
@@shokprof2064 for someone who has studied law and wanna be a jury
comment tho -.-'
SHOCK PROOF it was me.
CGP Grey: watch this and you may never be on a jury
...7 million+ views later...
CGP Grey: Well at least they watched the video
Just knowing and understanding the existence of jury nullification does not prevent you from being able to serve on a jury. It is when you actively have a plan to use it, that disqualifies you.
Also, I live in Germany, where defendants are found guilty by the judges.
I mean, that’s still not even 3% of the US population even if you assume nobody clicked on this video twice and only Americans watched it
Jury nullification is pretty much the whole point of having a jury in the first place. This is why lawyers and Judges hate it as it was always about the people controlling justice not the courts. Judges in the US have way to much power via plea bargains despite jury nullification. Which is the real reason for so many coerced plea (overcharged cases) bargains by the way.
*too much
And it can work the other way too. While nullification makes it possible to acquit someone if you believe that the law they've broken is unjust, it also makes it possible to convict them if you think they look a bit dodgy or have any other such prejudices
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz They can still do that with a guilty/not guilty system. Person looks dodgy and they don't like him or feel the law is unjust then they can all agree to guilty or not. Having a nullification puts that power in the people and says to the court and the general law that "we don't agree". Can it be used for bad? Yes but again so can guilty and not guilty. I also think it's better to have 3 choices rather than 2 because.
@@nanajosh The other problem is who decides whether a law is 'unjust'? Because any law can seem unjust to someone with a particular mindset!
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz that's why juries are made of multiple people.
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz We, the people decide whether a law is "unjust". There's a reason why we cast votes in an election to pick people who'd make our laws. Moral inclination is the biggest driving factor, along with projected prosperity.
I have never been asked to serve on a jury and I 100% believe I am on a list somewhere for watching this at various times.
> The Law You Won't Be Told
> *Tells us the law*
Science 2020 thats the point of the video
I love the "as long as courts are fair" statement at the very end. Since money came into the picture, courts have never been fair.
Still they have look like they are fair sooooo
Null! BOOYA! *Pelvic thrust*
*Pulls out meat scepter*
"Shwing"
Darrell Brooks just dropped a hint he might inform the Jury about Jury Nullification the day before the closing arguments were supposed to start in the Christmas Parade trial in Wisconsin. The judge, who has been very patient with him considering how he has acted in court, about flipped out and told him under no circumstances is he to discuss Jury Nullification with the jury in his closing arguments.
In this case, though, he is just trying to get the jury to let him off because "he didn't intend to kill 6 people and injure 60+." He did tell jury about it anyway and he was still found guilty on all charges. He didn't want to take responsibility....murder beyond a doubt(crime was on video and had many witnesses)
doesn't compare to a man stealing to feed his family. IMO
Hey FBI watching my phone, you seeing this?
FBI needs to watch the phones of high value targets. Judging by your words you are still a kid
NightcoRohak r/woosh
@@studiousboy644 ok boomer
@@SrSeedOK BOOMER : destruction 100, damage 99,8%of enemys health, extremely efficient against boomers, cannot use uno reverse card, boomers usually comitt boom vaporizing radius around 16 kilometres or 10 miles
@@milanhlavacek6730 calm down boomer
I know that in the state of Georgia, juries are REQUIRED to be instructed by the judge about jury nullification. Incidentally, it was due to jury nullification that Al Capone was never convicted of violating the Prohibition Act. The juries knew he had done it, but didn't think alcohol should have been illegal. As for the possibility of a third verdict, that exists in Scotland. There, the options are guilty, not guilty, and not proven. The difference between not guilty and not proven, is that with not proven, the charges can be reintroduced at a later date.
But in the US there's still a grand jury that can state there isn't proper evidence to have a trial, which is similar to not proven
To be honest, jury nullification in "not guilty" form is the exact point of having the jury in the first place - making sure the law doesn't work the wrong way in a situation it didn't account for.
No
Everyone needs to take a moment to appreciate the fact CGP squeezes so much information into such a short amount of time, especially considering YT creators can make a lot more money when their videos are over 8 minutes long. A video like this would be SUPER easy to stretch out over 8 minutes simply by slowing it down. This person is literally choosing to earn less income for the same amount of work, simply for the sake of producing a higher quality product.
We need more content creators like this.
We don't need content creators willing to sacrifice money for quality, we need a way to make money and quality connected in a way that making higher-quality videos is the best play even if you're just in it for the money.
@@whirl3690 The issue with that is that quality is incredibly subjective.
Grey is an unique type of content creator here on UA-cam. Rara Avis...
"...the other 11 angry men..."
That reference tho
+Luyang Che That was a good movie
+Katy Gilday I agree
+Luyang Che
You mean Ocean's Twelve??
+aktan4ik Nop, 12 angry man, you should watch it ;)
Thomas Lacroix
ok!
"do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?"
"no, I am like a nazi, I always follow my orders"
So if the entire world looked at this video, jury duty as a whole will die...
Not true just because you watched this video doesn’t mean you can’t become one.. unless he shows proof it’s a lie..
Unless (maybe) everyone applying to jury duty intends to (mostly) nullify, no. And even then, it's a big maybe.
But in reality, not everyone has a computer or phone, not everyone who has one knows about UA-cam, not everyone who knows about UA-cam knows about CGP Grey, not everyone who knows about CGP Grey knows about this video, not everyone who knows about this video has seen it, not everyone who has seen this video can apply for a jury, not everyone who applies for a jury will get accepted, not everyone who gets accepted will intend to nullify. (Every statement has all the previous ones as true)
Dani Paunov not sure about your homeland, but you don’t “apply” to sit on a jury here. You are compelled to by the law.
nope only the US law is so fucked up, with juries and precedent cases......
No because jury nullification lays perfectly within the bounds of the law. It is obviously not illegal to nullify and thus you can confidently answer that you aren't intending to do anything outside the bounds of the law.
"This may prevent you from ever serving on a jury again." I see this as an absolute win!
Glad I live in a country with no Jury system. People know shit, so why let them be in a jury?
Sie haben keine wahre Freiheit Holänder
Insane 3842 Und kunnen sie diese wahre Frieheit fur mich definieren denn, Deutscher?
ich bin Österreicherin
+Krijn van Alten Because People Control Country is true Freedom
+Insane 3842 When government is Always in Control People lose Freedom.
"This could get you barred from jury duty."
Me: Do tell...
Here's an answer. Doesn't that tell you it is a rigged game?
It takes one of the most important factors of law off the table... DISCOVERY!
Lmfao, I randomly clicked on your channel and we're subscribed to so many of the same channels.
@@BarockDroneBomba What does that tell you?
You ARE AWAKE AND DISCOVERY is making it happen.
Wait, if I can get out of jury duty by doing this...
HAHA LOL
Maybe we can get a CGP Grey video on the game theory of why we should all want to encourage a strong sense of civic duty to serve on juries. Who do you want on *your* jury when you find yourself in the dock?
this is why you always keep records....of everything, an boy do I mean everything.
Im glad this law is in place.
Amen brother
In the most fitting way, I actually know about jury nullification due to a clip of Saul Goodman referencing it.
What episode
Watching this video may prevent you from ever serving on a jury? Couldn't hit the play button fast enough.
Atomicskull but how did you know about it before watching?
Why? You don't want to be on a jury?
+
Alexandre Man
Nobody wants. It is guaranteed to be one of the most stressful, boring, tedious, time consuming and reward-less thing you'll do in your life.
Well... If you say so.
Hypothetical question:
My courthouse has a lot of buildings (mostly attorney's offices) around it. A lot of those buildings have billboards for lease on the sides of them...
What if I lease a billboard and have them put up a sign that explains what jury nullification is? Or simply... JURY NULLIFICATION: LOOK IT UP.
How long until I start getting phone calls, nasty letters, or knocks on my door?
What if you mentioned jury nullification in your testimony and disqualified all of those in the jury?
That might be disrupting progress of court? Dunno laws. That's how it sounds anyway.
The judge could instruct the Jury to disregard the witness, but I believe that's it.
Mistrial, retrial, and possible sanctions.
Brian Pollard I
This needs a better answer.
Lawyer to Juror: Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?"
Juror: "I saw a CGP Grey video"
If you're arrested for saying "Null! Booya!" just get your jury nullified.
I nullify a jury once, It was cool
If you answer "no" to having heard about nullification but later nullify, can't you just say you heard about nullification during the trial?
no because lawyers and judges won't talk about it freely like this video. so you couldn't have heard about nullification during the trial
@From the Soil but that would be if THOSE jurors lied about not hearing about the nullification rule. but you make a decent point, would YOU get in trouble for someone else committing perjury? (is it still perjury if you're not testifying in the court about a case?)
Just say you didn't know about nullification, but just did the logical thing.
If you keep your mouth shut and simply vote "No guilty" by saying that you agree with the defendant's lawyer then it's effectively the same thing. A verdict requires a unanimous vote, so if you make it a hung jury it's likely that the state won't choose to prosecute again unless it's some _overtly_ guilty-of-something-nasty defendant (then why aren't you voting guilty?) or a high profile case.
@@tinseltina But couldn't you have watched this video as a juror during the proceedings and found out about it that way?
This is a "How To Avoid Jury Duty" tutorial. And about bloody time too.
Ok so let me get this straight…if I go into a trial yelling “ jury nullification “ and get arrested for contempt then take that case to a jury trial where I get to testify about how I yelled jury nullification then I essentially just tainted the entire jury and would have to pick a new jury and just get myself stuck in a catch 22…huh…this sounds like fun.
What if you could use this premeditated like you would have a shirt that said it on there or even like tatto it to your forehead so that when they give a description of you as the suspect they have to say the word and get the case thrown out that that way…
From what little I looked into this, it seems contempt of court in the US is the sole discretion of the Judge/Court and doesn't require a jury to enact or enforce (not legal advice).
@@starlacUK Correct.
Could you still request a jury trial?
If the crime is real but too petty to really be punished, then it's the place for nullification.
I disagree.Pety crimes can cause a lot of problems in the future so they should always recive a light punishment.
It should be used to target laws and policies made by non elected officials based on "interpretation of the law and their powers to enforce it". Petty crime does need punishment, but community service and classes are better than jail and severe fines in petty crime cases.
Nullification should be a tool of the people to strike down unconstitutional laws. The example of lynch mobs just tells me that Nullification cases should be instantly brought up to an appeals court just to discuss the legality of the nullified law, if the law was constitutional then the law stays on the books. Say the EPA declares extended exhaust pipes illegal for some arbitrary reason and justification. Jury nullifies, case goes to appeals, validity of the law and how it came to be are debated. If the law is declared unconstitutional, then the law is no longer enforceable.
This also goes back to the debate between the Spirit of the law and the Word of the law. I'd argue that both Spirit and Word of the law should be broken in most cases to justify a guilty verdict.
@@komrade223 thats a very good point.But I didnt neccesarly meant jail time for petty crimes.
Marijuana possession, for instance.
Jury nullification should be used in ALL cases where the law itself is unconstitutional and no victim results from the action.
My wife swayed a jury 25 years ago. The punishment was way out of line for the "crime". When they came back not guilty, the arresting officer was PISSED!
What was it? A joint worth of weed on a blk guy that was being “ offered “ 10 years!!
Something like that !!!! 😐😐😐😐😐
@@changeoffocus1074 why were you so specific?
@@dre5586 because wrongful arrests happen more often to blck people in America?
@@litrpg101 I know that and it needs to be fixed. I was just a little confused, that’s all :)
Jury nullification has been around for a long time. It's a natural consequence of the Constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy. And while in an extreme case it may be an ultimate safety valve it actually has very limited utility as an expression of the "Will of the People."
[1] Jury nullification is merely the expression of a jury's disinclination for some reason to convict a person who quite probably is guilty of the crime charged. It is the natural consequence of the prohibition of double jeopardy and works because the prosecution may not appeal a jury verdict of acquittal -- even when under the evidence and law the defendant was unquestionably guilty.
[2] Jury nullification doesn't change the law. It's not precedent. The law exists and continues to exist and can be applied in other cases. Jury nullification has only let a guilty person off.
[3] For jury nullification to work the jury must acquit. That means that all the jurors necessary for acquittal must agree even when they have accepted based on the evidence that the defendant is guilty, and they must so agree even though they had been instructed by the judge that they are to apply the law as explained by him to the facts as they, the jury, find. While a single juror can generally cause a hung jury, a hung jury merely results in a mistrial; and the defendant can be retried.
[4] Jury nullification only has meaning in criminal cases. A plaintiff can appeal an adverse verdict in a civil case.
[5] Jury nullification works only to the extent that the prohibition on double jeopardy applies. But often one can be tried both on a state criminal charge and a federal criminal charge without violation double jeopardy, even if each charge is based on the same facts.
You might remember the Rodney King incident in the early 1990s. The four police officers who were involved in his beating were charged under state law with various "excessive force" crimes, tried in state court and acquitted (well, one drew a hung jury as to one charge). They were subsequently tried in federal court on federal charges involving the same incident and facts, and two of the officers were convicted and sent to federal prison.
[6] In theory of course reasons for an acquittal against the weight of the evidence and law could be noble. But historically there have been instances of jury nullification having clearly ignoble application, such as when at times in our history a jury of White men in some States would resolutely refuse to convict a clearly guilty White defendant of the murder of a Black person.
[7] Jury nullification of course is possible only when there's a jury, i. e., when a case is being tried to a jury. But precedent comes from appellate courts deciding matters of law.
Alcohol prohibition also ended because too many jurors refused to convict on a horseshit law
Comments with actual content should get more likes. Thank you.
jkops2 It hurts most people’s brains to actually read.
Is it really impossible for the prosecutors to appeal to a higher court in the US?
@@57thorns: It's impossible for the prosecution to appeal a jury verdict of acquittal. So if after a jury trial the jury comes in with a verdict of "not guilty" the case is over, and the prosecution can't appeal.
There are times when the prosecution can appeal an adverse finding. For example, it's common for a defendant in a criminal case to initially by motion ask the judge to dismiss the case for one of a number of possible, legal reasons. If the judge does dismiss the case, the prosecution can appeal.
There are other circumstances under which the prosecution could appeal an adverse ruling. But if the case goes to trial before a jury and the jury finds the defendant not guilty, the prosecution can't appeal.
Loved the reference to 12 Angry Men! I watched that movie in a Foundations of Law class, and I really enjoyed it. Not sure if I agreed with the jury’s verdict in the end, but it was certainly entertaining to watch them reach that decision.
That's actually one of my favourite parts of the story: the story was written in such a way that the viewer need not agree with the decision they come to. The story doesn't tell you if they were correct or not, and they come out with a few of the jurors still thinking he's guilty, so it's clearly up for interpretation. I think we need more stories like that, ones that force the viewer to come up with their own opinions instead of blindly following the protagonist
"I'd rather 10 criminals get away with it, than one innocent person should suffer unjustly".
(Paraphrased)
PotatoTornado It’s bad too because punishing someone who didn’t do something let’s the person that did do it do it again before being caught.
@PotatoTornado What you're talking about isn't justice but redemption
When you have police and courts. Playing win at any cost attitude. With the help of public defenders.in cases were your indigent.for poor and the disadvantage.plead em out. It's all about the $. It's anything but a fair and impartial Justice system.
Then you would condemn the innocent to suffer under 10 criminals. There is a limit; you have to accept that there will be some erroneous conviction rate or there won’t be convictions at all. If there are no convictions the end result is that disputes are settled by random acts of violence and nobody gets convicted for it.
PotatoTornado unless you are the falsely accused
_”Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”_ -Preamble of the Declaration of Independence
Xan Ostler what if they do not consent?
Feminist: Rape!
Me: 😂
like you, the governed
Google preamble to the constitution of the united States. No where in it does it say what you claim it says! Moron!
@@debbieturner6346 That's because it's in the Declaration of Independence. Just like the original poster stated... You feel that? It's the realization of your own stupidity setting in...
@@tagndash01 nope. That's a disinformation agent. He knew exactly what he was doing....Hoping to mislead others from figuring out that no1 can lawfully force them to do anything they don't want to do.
I love the way he explains things. stick figures + hilariously dry humored slightly sarcastic academic sounding voice
As long as the laws remain in place which allow for jury nullification then any decision you make as part of a jury is a decision based strictly on the law.