Yeah, that's what people who can *afford* a judge do! The other 99% who go through a court are poor (and that's no accident!). So they provide the guilty verdicts, that shows to everybody how the system is good and just. Because it puts poor people in jail.
It’s possible, say if the jury is biased or ……. not the best, Jurors are just random people picked, a judge has spent years studying law and probably knows better than the Jury if the verdict or the punishment is just.
@@generaltom6850 jury selection ends up making the jury a middle ground, it's not actually completely random, if the lawyers on both sides are good then they get rid of the super biased people...
Much steeper. In some states there are limitation, caps as low as four or five digits, but they dont tell the jury about those caps, and juries awards millions, only for the state law to be invoked, slashing the reward to a tenth or less. In states without these caps, judges look to those other state laws for guidance when issuing remitturs. This perversion of justice is a travesty.
What's more likely? All 12 jurors, who were selected by both prosecuting and defense teams of lawyers, collectively coming to the same decision about the case, are somehow biased in their decision; or the single judge who thinks differently than those 12 people?
@@guus19900not smart enough or just willing to? They basically replace my wage for jury duty so why not go? I don’t get why people who can try to get out of it. If I couldn’t due to childcare or work sure. But if I can make it work I’m going. I know I can bring something to the table and not doing so would be against my own moral code. basically all it is, is, if you can help, do it. Short but all encompassing
@@Marynicole830 you're lucky then. Some states pay as little as $5 a day. Most people in the middle class and below can't afford to miss a single day of work much less multiple days if the case drags out.
A judge unilaterally adding money to a jury verdict is called "additur" and is (pretty much) not allowed in Federal Court. In Georgia, judges can do it but often don't because theyre elected officials and want that sweet campaign contribution from the insurance companies to get elected the next go round. America!
@@SicFromTheKush I’m an attorney who has literally worked in the same industry as Mike Rafi in Georgia. You’re a RU-vid stoner. I don’t really care what you think Ngl.
It also means the Judges have discretion on what is considered a "reasonable" person. So they can rule something unreasonable even if the majority of people fall into that category.
Trial by jury, until a judge decides you're not entitled to that right. Judges are a distinct problem, and every one needs to be accountable to the people via recall, all the way to SCOTUS
@@freebornjames6142 what happened to the whole law and order thing? I thought he supported the Justice system, why is he now a convicted felon with several other pending charges? What's going on 🤣
I would assume it’s the same reason a judge is able to overturn a guilty verdict if they believe something went wrong with the jury, but cannot overturn an innocent verdict.
The judge cannot do that, what he describes is a bit more complicated than a brief RU-vid short can accurately capture. Judges are only able to throw out jury verdicts under certain circumstances via a highly deferential standard of review. Remittitur is more common, but still relatively rare.
True. Most people have no idea that the jury's verdict is only a SUGGESTION for the judge. The judge is the JUDGE for a reason. They can change or even completely overrule the jury's recommendation.
@@woopsserg As long as the verdict is legal to apply, that shouldn't matter. If a normal person would find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you should probably be found guilty.
One thing that’s seems to be forgotten I t he context is a judge can only overturn a guilt verdict in a criminal case. They cannot find you guilty after you were acquitted
Besides the existence of lobbyists, who are worse, expensive campaign spending is a blight on American politics. Sadly money can swing votes if you spend it the right way. There ought to be strict limits. Give each candidate 5 minutes of TV time, maybe once a week, and that's paid for by the government, not the candidate. Then after that, strict spending limits. Just to reduce the black hole of corruption that's otherwise created. The UK has spending limits on political campaigns, and they're taken seriously. Parties above a certain size also get to make a "Party Political Broadcast" for a few minutes, free to them, on TV to explain themselves. It's not a perfect system cos voters are dumbasses, but it removes a lot of potential for corruption. Over here, corruption is decided at school, your old school chums all "help" each other out in later life. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. I'm talking about very expensive private schools, of course.
This actually happened to me in a criminal trial. The judge blocked evidence in the discovery process and so I was found guilty. But in the sentencing phase I was able to tell the story as it happened and I was sentenced to 0 years, 0 dollars, 0 restitution. He overturned that and gave me 3 years of probation. 2.5 years later that same judge revokes my probation for a crime I was only accused of. I was found innocent of that crime because it was so obvious the cops were lying and making stuff up. He refused the entrapment defense even though there was an extreme amount of evidence to prove entrapment. So the jury basically told the judge to go fuck himself and came back with an innocent verdict in less than 7 minutes.
@@roninkraut6873 Calling our current legal system a "justice" system is like calling a cardboard gruel restaurant "The Flavor Diner". You could find justice/flavor, but you have to be able to afford to bring your own lawyer/maple syrup.
Oh my God you are telling us the judges are compromised and tainted and they will favor the defendant insurance company. 😢 That makes me wonder how much money insurance companies pay judges?
Don’t forget judges decide if they’re too biased to sit as judge for the trial for themselves. Judge we think you’re biased! Judge: hmmmmm I’ve investigated my own bias and find no guilt. I stay.
FYI: this lawyer gets a massive cut of any money awarded by a court. He's not exactly the most unbiased person to say that the amount of money awarded should be higher when he's getting 30-50% of the money. If you haven't found any example of an excessive verdict then you've not been paying attention.
@@Treblaine The lawyer getting a cut of the winnings is a good thing. It puts their interests directly in line with the interests of their client while allowing clients to not have to pay them unless they win. It's literally a win-win for both parties, especially in a system where it would basically be impossible for the average person to pay for a lawyer otherwise.
Little do we know, but this is a passcode given to Mike that reveals the code to a secret bunker built by the Illuminati.(he is a top secret CIA agent) Yeah, ngl it does look quite sharp; “Calmly blued”.
The reason why we have a jury is because it is hard to convince 12 people of the exact same thing. Pwople don't realized that 12 people are 12 different interpretation of the event ar hand. Getting them to agree shouldn't even be possible. It hard to even bribe that many people. I agree there should be someone willing to look at verdicts to decide if the pay off if fair or not, but it shouldn't be one person, nor should they be connected to the case
i hear this then i look to all those judgements involving truck drivers (where video proves trucker didnt cause the accident) but the person/family get 10+ mil payout because "driver inexperience/going fast" even though if the other person stayed in their lane nobody would have gotten hurt...
Depends on the damages because there are laws in many states that restrict the amount you can be awarded. It's also important to note that a Judge can only change a guilty verdict, not an innocent one.
I’m confused. Are you talking about a criminal or civil court case? Where I live, and in much of Europe, you cannot be found ‘guilty’ during civil proceedings, just liable. Is it not the same in the US?
I believe he's talking about both, as judges can overturn a guilty verdict in a criminal trial in some cases. But no, "guilty" is not a standard verdict in a civil case, but then again, many civil cases don't see a jury.
@elefecto4945 yes they are and they can be swayed as well but if they go off of their whelms they can be held to account by law. A jury can not be sued or disbarred for voting with their emotions. I Judge is held to a higher standard.
Judge is a human, however the judge usually has seen it all and is not that easily swayed by emotions. There are shit judges that act on a whim but that's another problem. Compare it with surgeon for example, most of the people would puke while looking on cut open human flesh but surgeons just do their job emotionless.
The law is written to limit liability to save money for insurance companies, who than take a small percentage of the savings to hire lobbyists to write laws for legislative bodies to pass for donations to their campaign.
Imagine having a slam dunk case and opposing council allows/helps make a jury of mostly same race, just to be able to decry it later with well clearly it's not so bad, the jury just put personal prejudice when they ineveitably lose.
I think it's the opposite, he filed for chapter 11 but they are trying to switch it to chapter 7 liquidation. Alex Jones deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life. Even if they take all his money, he has made his family and friends millionaires, he can just live like a millionaire with other people footing the bill for him. And he is still making more money for them while pretending he can't pay his debts (which are owed to himself and his parents)
Which is entirely correct. The average person isn't going to earn 10 million dollars in their entire life. Verdicts of tens or hundreds of millions outside of literal gigantic corporate fraud cases is moronic and insanity and judges should write it down more often.
I once saw Judge Wapner (from The People's Court) award a plaintiff more than they were asking for. Maybe he was exceptional. He was a great judge to have on a TV show, from a PR perspective.
...because adding to the verdict would be illegal and a gross overreach of a judge's authority. Remittance is legal and valid. Also, a judge can only remit punitive damages. To increase damages would infringe upon the jury's decision-making authority and potentially result in excessive punishment.
In America, our original legal framework was largely based on English common law. In all of thier history, only one king is referred to as "the great". Among other things Alfred was known to hang judges. Think about that.
Honestly, the "12 random dudes" system is probably the most fair you could get without some way of measuring truth flawlessly without human input. That would be magic, though, so we stick with the 12 dudes. The fact that a judge can override the 12 dudes in a system that says you're entitled to a trail with those 12 dudes deciding the outcome is the really messed up thing.
A judge really should not be allowed to tell the jury they are wrong and rule differently. If there really is a belief they are wrong it should just become a new trial with a new jury. A judge should not hold that much power.
How is it against the Constitution? Like it's fine to say that but the judicial powers do grant that ability to judges and allows states to make the rules for their common law as well so neither is it unconstitutional in federal or state proceedings by the Constitution. Now you could say you should think it should be unconstitutional but that's a different thing than saying that it is.
To your point exactly, My wife and I had a jury trial for a lawsuit against a wedding venue over $9000 paid for a wedding in 2020 that didn’t happen due to Covid restrictions. The jury found that they had breached their contract and awarded us $0. Our attorney asked for a judgement not withstanding the verdict and the judge said don’t bother filing it.
"Wonder why that is?" A judge tempering an overzealous jury awarding money that isn't theirs makes sense. The judge deciding unilaterally that a jury of peers didn't punish a defendant enough doesn't. It's scary if you genuinely don't understand that.
Both make sense little bro and both don’t happen only one and that’s cause judges are payed off (lobbied)by the companies cause they don’t wanna pay as much as they should
“A judge deciding that a prosecutor was not compensated fairly and needs more to account for the damages suffered makes sense but unilaterally deciding that the jury awarded too much money doesn’t” Listen, you can flip it either way. It doesn’t make sense for the judge to overrule any jury because the point of the jury was to make that decision INSTEAD of a judge making that decision. The amount of money awarded to the prosecutor isn’t meant to be a punishment, it’s meant to be reparations for their wrongs. It’s not teaching the defendant, it’s compensating the victim.
If a judge sees $210k awarded for $200k in medical bills he can and will sometimes knock it down, but if $190k is awarded he has never seen it raised to $200k is what he's explaining.
Judges overruling the will of the people was an immediate fireable offense in our country not long ago - it is illegal and wicked for a judge to do this.
I wonder if it's the same principle as a judge being allowed to change a guilty verdict to not guilty verdict in a criminal trial but not the other way around.
"Why don't they just hand it over? It aint their money afterall!!" Raise a Little Hell Reprise from the 2012 OBC Recording for "Bonnie and Clyde". This musical painfully sums up the disaster we are in currently.
I find it strange that the jury has a say in setting awards. The jury’s only input should be Guilty/Not Guilty and then it’s up to the judge to decide, just like when determining a sentence.
Unless it's Alex Jones. Then they let the jury award the plaintiff 1.5 billion dollars because he reported on words another person said that hurt their feelings. The judge opted not to apply a $750,000 cap Texas imposes on punitive damages.
"And we shall have fair and speedy trials by jury!" "The jury is instructed to disregard the fairness of this trial and agree, after years of discussions and a remarkably lengthy trial, to do whatever I say."
Important clarification (unless I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure) A judge cannot increase the amount given or, in a criminal case, turn an innocent verdict into a guilty one. I also believe you have covered this before, but punitive is what gets reduced usually but not what like what would cover your hospital bill or repair/replacing your car.
Is there any legal recourse to overrule the judge's Remittance? Like a jury awards five million dollars to cover round the clock nurse care for the rest of a person's life- but the judge drops that figure down to just half a million, which wouldn't pay for hardly anything. Can you do anything? Go to the court above him?
I am advocating that a civil jury’s decision should be followed. We shouldn’t change a jury’s decision, especially when judges only change it one way… down.
@@MikeRafiLawyerQuestion: Does it seem that a certain population always mistrusts lawyers and judges? My armchair lawyer brain thinks it's usually criminals and negligent people who don't like the idea that they might be held liable in a court. 🤨 I mean, "surely" it's because of unethical lawyers. 🤦
We had a mediator in a case I was in that awarded me more than what was the average rate going for that type of issue. He actually doubled it. It wasn't in a courtroom however he was a former judge.
It is because the legal system is meant to be weighted in favor of the defendant, to ensure that an overbearing state does not inflict undo harm to an individual. While this is disadvantaged to your cause and in some cases tragic, this principle is a core element to the legal system and one that the masses seem to forget the virtue of.
My dad sat on the jury for an insurance case for State Farm where it was clear to everyone that this lightning strike had done the damage and should be covered. The only evidence that State Farm could present was a weather report that recorded no lightning strikes for the day. The jury awarded her damages and costs but the judge was so incensed by State Farm's contemptuous presentation in court that he upped the compensation. Though I do live in a state that most attorneys try to get these kinds of cases moved to because my state is infamous for loving to stick it to big companies.
I've only known so many judges, but I can say with utmost confidence that, good and bad, I have NEVER known a judge who ACTUALLY had a good idea of what an average reasonable person would think. They are wildly out of touch, immersed in a world of legal whatnottery completely divorced from normal experience, and they can't seem to recognize that.
Can the judge actually increase the amount awarded? It makes sense that they decrease it pursuant to the law, but there’s no mandatory minimum that gives them the right to increase the payout.
I think you kind of brushed over the idea that the judgement is being brought down, in some cases, because the law has set limits on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded. Often, the judge will not tell the jury about these limits so they do not influence the verdict. A famous example is the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial. The judge allowed the jury to make their verdict so that they make a number based on what they think the defendant should be paid, and then the amount can be adjusted based on the limits
I feel like this also happens because whatever they say is awarded the defendant can’t possibly pay by money or assets and can’t reasonably recover from any debt accrued from it. Maybe that’s why, I’m no lawyer, but it’s what makes sense to me
