There's an old story about a Jury in days of yore that acquitted a man charged with stealing a sheep from a hated landowner. The Jury acquitted the man but said he had to return the sheep. The Judge was furious! Such a verdict was an outrage! He sent them from the courtroom to reconsider. When they returned he asked them if they had amended their verdict. "Yes," said the foreman, "we have. He can keep the sheep." EDIT: It is indeed a joke! But it means that the jury did what they believed to be the right thing regardless of the law. It is an amusing illustration of jury nullification. I'm adding this edit for clarity as the comments seem a tad confused on what ought to be a fairly obvious point (not unlike juries IRL TBH; the questions they ask in deliberations make you wonder what trial they heard)..
The verdict implies that the jury did, in fact, think that the defendant had stolen the sheep. In saying that the defendant had to return the sheep (later to keep the sheep), they indicated that they thought the sheep were in his possession.
This is just a joke. It is not jury nullification. Jury nullification is voting to acquit when a person did do the deed, BUT you don't agree that the deed is wrong. If you don't think prostitution should be illegal, you might vote not guilty even though it was proven that the woman was a prostitute. Basically, what jury nullification is is refusing to accept a moral or ethical standard that you disagree with.
_"A jury has the power to do this, but not the right to do this"._ What a perfect example of judicial arrogance. Judges do things that they have neither the right, nor the authority to do as a matter of course. This is the one area where We The People have the power to check the injustices of our legal industry. Thanks for discussing this. It needs to be common knowledge.
@@d.e.b.b5788 Only during a trial. If a juror knows what jury nullification is and that they are under no legal obligation to follow rules the judge lays forth regarding only the evidence given by the court then they will be able to nullify dumb laws.
It's like Fight Club. First rule of Jury Nullification: You do not talk about Jury Nullification. Second rule of Jury Nullification: You *do not* talk about Jury Nullification....
Unless, of course, your goal is to just get out of jury duty. Drop the fact that you know all about jury nullification and how it works during voir dire, and you'll be excused instantly.
During jury duty everyone was asked by the judge in front of all the other jurors if they would follow the law as instructed by the judge. Everyone said yes until he got to me. I said, "no, I will not convict someone of an immoral law". The judge and attorneys were flabbergasted and spent 5 minutes asking why I said that and I used that time to inform the other people in the jury pool about nullification. I remember telling them that the jury is truly the final check on whether the government is acting morally. Anyway they didn't pick me.
I'd have said "I'd follow the law." The Constitution is so ambiguous that you could pretty much rule any law was unconstitutional that you wanted. A juror has no responsibility to bow to the SCOTUS on readings of law.
The biggest problem I see is that the legal system cares more about winning and upholding their power over others than what is right or just. I see way to often a prosecutor will go after someone because they can without asking if they should.
How does this treatment of the Constitutional Right of jurors not INCENSE the masses and how do judges get to supress lawful information. This is revolution-worthy.
Excerpt from the unanimous decision in Georgia v. Brailsford (1794), written by the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and Founding Father, John Jay: "It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision." Fast forward a century later, and the courts have begun to be corrupted by corporate interests. Striking is against the law, and Big Railroad is upset that juries are refusing to convict labor leaders. The Supreme Court "clarifies" Georgia v. Brailsford, and so begins the exaltation of corporate interests over the people's interests to not be exploited and forced to work under horrific conditions. "And accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Fast forward another century, and many of our laws have literally been written by corporations. Judges are constantly lying to jurors about their power to nullify the law, instead convincing them that they are but mere finders of fact. A bare majority decision has held that these judges' lies are not reversible errors. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." There are only four boxes available to us in the defense of liberty: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box. We MUST promote and ADVOCATE for the first three boxes, so that we will never have to resort to the last one. We must never submit to tyrants who deign to take a peaceful and legitimate exercise of power away from the people. That would only make violence inevitable. I do not advocate for violence. Anyone who refuses to advocate for jury nullification is effectively advocating for violence.
I remember back in the 90's a defense attorney in Denver actually told the jury about nullification. Two things happened: 1) Mistrial; 2) the attorney got hauled in front of the BAR. Funny, you are entitled to a jury of your PEERS. Your PEERS decide guilt/not guilt, not a judge/prosecutor who finds nullification disruptive and a threat to their power.
Jim as a former and soon to be again a Michiganian I recall why I never got a law degree in Michigan! I watched until the 5:09 mark and then my anger got the better of me. First of all Juries which descend from the Magna Carta and English common Law were INTENDED to thwart government tyranny. Originally asan interesting side note a Bailiff was responsible for also Arresting a JUDGE should the need arise. Jurors are arbiters of both FACT and LAW. THey DO have the power to find not guilty if they believe a law is unjust. Under Original English law if you went to court and said "produce the victim" and the court could not then there was NO OFFENSE. The upshot of all of this is Lawyers hate their Rice Bowls broken and many Judges are just Black robed thugs who practice tyranny! I was amazed when you said they convicted him of "jury tampering" especially since the people reading the Literature were not impaneled.. this stinks of statism and tyranny.
I've done a bit of reading on the subject. Of course that doesn't make me an expert but it's my understanding that some prominent legal scholars...including at least one or two of the "Founding Fathers"...support the concept. I've never been a juror but if I was a juror in a case involving a law with which I disagree I'm gonna find the person "not guilty" even if he had, in fact, broken that law.
America's 1st chief justice, John Jay, explained the juror's right to jury nullification, (Georgia vs. Brailsford) but the govt and judges hate it and try to supress it.
This is so kind of (dejavue)? I have been on jury duty twice, the first time was a reckless driving case and the judge said if we wanted to hang around he would come talk to anyone if they had questions. I was in my mid 20's and I was fascinated with the whole process and I stayed around and talked to the judge (the only one because I had kind of been the one that had us in the jury room for approx 3.5hrs all the others kind of went poof). He was extremely nice and sat down and talked to me for about 1/2 an hour. Without getting to long winded about details, I did not think the guy was driving recklessly, in fact to this day I will argue that because of the situation he was probably driving more attentively or less reckless than any other person that might have been on that deserted road with only him and the officer that pulled him over. The Judge was awsome, we had found him guilty. The judge explained why, if he would have had to decide the case, he would have had to find the same way. We were not out there for sentencing of course and the judge said that the guy had a great driving record (which we all new because his lawyer had pounded that part in) and that he had given him the minimum that the law would allow him too. Right at the end of talking to him I mentioned that yea according to the letter of the reckless driving law he might have been guilty but that he I wasn't sure it he was guilty of the spirit of what the law was trying to accomplish if he could understand what I was saying. He said he did and the last thing he said as we were leaving the jury room (and the whole reason I am leaving this comment) if you ever get the chance look up (Drum Roll please) Jury Nullification. I am just a few years younger than you so no real inter-web yet or smart phones to get instant knowledge but within the next couple weeks I did look it up at the library (see all you youngsters out there, there was a place called a library and you could go there to get books......) And now all these years later I am sitting here thinking about the part you mentioned here "a true and just...", and in that situation we got the true based off the facts right but at the same time might not got the just, based off the same facts, right. For that situation I think they may have separated a bit. I know just a reckless driving ticked but I was the youngest one in the jury room and for 3.5hrs I could not figure what and how to explain why I did not think he was guilty. It was very frustrating at the time. Love you vids and keep on keepin on....
If the Jury's oath is to render a True and Just verdict, what would happen if the Jury returned from deliberation and the foreman said "Your Honor, we are unable to render a verdict under oath. We all feel that a true verdict would be unjust and a just verdict would be untrue and thus any verdict we give would be a violation of our oaths."?
Yeah, that's what I thought when he read that. If I had to sign a statement saying that I would return a "true and just" verdict, I would have to refuse to sign it, since there's no way I could know in advance, whether it is possible to find a verdict that is both.
Nullification has a legal, legit purpose. For courts to deprive juries of any legal tool is wrong. Courts are about winning convictions, not the truth or justice. This video demonstrates that.
The tool that the judges use is the ignorance of the jurors. Turns out if you don't know your rights, you are doomed to lose them. The schools are at fault for not having classes that cover and discuss the rights that have been hard fought for you by your founding fathers.
Jury nullification is the people's last chance to take into account the law itself. This also means the people on the jury make a rational decision among themselves, versus blindly following what someone else tells them. The State hates it when people think for themselves or make a judgement based on the law. The judge you spoke of that pulled the pamphlet guy into court needs to be fired and charged for violating that guy's 1st amendment rights. Of course, that will never happen.
I think the Constitutional right to a jury trial exists with nullification in mind. In my broken Latin: _lex mala non est lex_ It is a check on an overpowered government. (Many of the founding fathers were quite concerned about the possibility of an overpowered government.) But the powerful don't want anything to act as a check on their power. They want juries to be a mere formality, a rubber stamp on the decision they would make anyway. If it wouldn't be too obvious, I'm sure judges would be happy to instruct jurors as to the desired verdict. As a practical matter, jury nullification should be rare. An attorney _should_ be able to say "if you want to, ignore the law." And I'll tell you why. If I am on a jury involving reckless driving, I don't want to ignore the law. If I had heard about the overzealous charging by police, I might decide that that amounts to reasonable doubt. But I don't want people to disregard the safety of others when they drive. I _want_ to apply that law. A defense attorney who asks me to ignore the law has practically conceded his client's guilt. The only time such a suggestion would be effective is when the jury already agrees that the law is a bad one. If, say, there were a law saying that everyone had to let the Chief of Police come into his home and empty his refrigerator if the Chief felt like it, and someone did not let the Chief in, that would be a good candidate for nullification. The principle of jury nullification is good because it prevents legislatures from writing laws that are likely to be nullified.
The concept of the jury system predates the Founding Fathers of the US. It is quite literally medieval in concept. In his Constitutional History of England, F. W. Maitland showed how the common law of each manor court managed to accommodate the statutory law of the early kings by allowing the upper class of locals to make such adjustments. Juries, in the early British Middle Ages, were selected "from those standing about" (circumstantibus) in court awaiting resolution of their own complaints. For as long as this practice continues to be fruitful, we should continue the practice. Although it looks to be more fruitful now than before, we now have a different class of "circumstantibus" from which to form our juries. Personally, I believe every plaintiff should accept the circumstantibus that they have at their disposal. Voir dire is out of control.
Where I live, the local police forces are so corrupt that you don’t have to use jury nullification. You just ask the question “can you the jury convict a man if there is even a shadow of doubt of this persons guilt?” “Were our local police force involved in this case in any way shape or form?” “If you answer yes,(and their is no way they can answer no) then there is your shadow of doubt.” Then the person that asks these questions can vote not guilty and by default nullify the jury. Remember “there are no good cops, for if there were, there would be no bad cops. And at the Federal level the government in all branches is so corrupt that there is no way that there can not be a shadow of doubt on anything they say or do or evidence they produce.
During jury selection I told the judge I didnt belive in the drug laws and would not find anyone guilty if drugs were involved. He had a fit. Brought me to a back room and read the riot act . Never been called again.
that would of been a lawsuit against the state its jury selection he cant throw a fit if you said that now if you said f him f court ect he could of did that then dismissed ya or got you on contempt lol
When I went through jury selection everyone was asked if they think they can be impartial if they hear things about domestic violence. The case was not about domestic violence, but I assume that played a huge role in it. I was not selected, but I guess the guy was found not guilty of the crime he was being tried for. Anyways, if the person thinks they cannot be impartial for whatever reason, they should state that, if asked why, then they should be able to say why and not fear being reprimanded.
He probably just didn't believe you, and thought you were just trying to get out of jury duty. Judges kind of don't like it when they can't get through joie vivre.
@@BrightBlueJim no because it was a rural county in my fish farming days. It was the custom to allow farm owners out of jury duty upon request. Being winter I made no such request as I had in the past. His main gripe was I said it out loud in a room full of people.
In other words judges hate the fact that the legal system is NOT the POWER rather the people who make the jury are the final power. ANY JUDGE that prosecutes ANYONE related to jury nunilfication should be disbarred for life and taken out of office PERIOD.
A jury in Federal court acquitted a guy who was caught with a half-eaten roasted bald eagle. His intent was to eat trout, but an egal swooped down as he was fighting the trout onto dry land and stole the trout off the line. The defendant threw a rock intending to make the eagle drop the fish, but the rock hit the eagle in the head, killing it instantly. Now that all was over but the shouting, the judge asked the defendant, "Well, cat's out the bag at this point...what does bald eagle taste like?" "Kinda like California condor, Your Honor, but gamey, like manatee."
Nullification is a powerful tool, if only we would use it. Some day I may register to vote in hopes of getting selected for a jury. I'm sure in Woods trial the judge didn't allow evedence of the content of the leaflets being nullification, I'm sure all the jury heard was the defendant was passing out jury tampering information.
Any form of government in the world, be it a military dictatorship or a constitutional republic like ours can pass absurd and oppressive laws. At the end of the day the jury is NOT there to determine if the defendant is guilty or not of breaking law, but rather if they're guilty or not of actual wrongdoing. It's a subtle but important distinction.
@13:30 you read jury instructions that demand the jury accept the law as it is given to them by the judge. I certainly believe those instructions are given and believe it gives judges and attorneys hives to even contemplate that mere jurors not listen to their sage advice. Thing is, the history of our legal system is _firmly_ in favor of jury nullification. If you think about it the whole point of a jury was to take the power away from the high priests of the legal system. No surprise that attorneys and judges hate this but they are flying in the face of how our judicial system was envisioned. Some cool quotes below: _The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact._ - Oliver Wendell Holmes, United States Supreme Court Justice _The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the facts in controversy._ - John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court _The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge_ - U.S. vs. Dougherty, 1972 _It would be an absurdity for jurors to be required to accept the judge’s view of the law, against their own opinion, judgment, and conscience._ - John Adams, 2nd president of the US, vice president to George Washington The above includes founding fathers as well as legal scholars and supreme court decisions. Nullification should be considered one of the most deeply held rights we have as citizens. To abandon it is akin to letting the priests of old tell you what the bible said because most of the populace could not read latin. Just trust them they'd tell you. There is a reason they work very hard to not let you do it as detailed in this video.
This man's rights were violated, the judges involved exercised judicial tyranny by depriving him of his rights, and this is why jury nullification has been an important part of common law. It enables jurors to stand between the individual and the power of the government.
If people would stand together we could stop this injustice and force Judges and DA's to stop abusing their power like this. Building and filling prisons with non violent people isn't improving our lives.
I was just dismissed from jury selection yesterday. For the record, I don't TRY to get out of jury duty, these really are my beliefs, and I make sure the judge knows them when they ask the appropriate questions: -If I believe a law to be unjust, I will not find the accused guilty, no matter what. (For example, if a doctor in Ohio was being charged with providing an abortion to a woman who NEEDED it and I was on that jury, I would find him not guilty no matter what.) -I will not be able to follow the judge's instructions if they ask me to do something that goes against my own moral code. (For example, if I was juror and was shown proof that convinced me that the accused is a dangerous person committed a serious crime, but then the judge told the jury they had to disregard the evidence for whatever reason, I would not follow that instruction and most likely declare the accused guilty anyway.) These are my own moral standards and I am not flexible on them. I cannot be intimidated by the government into doing what I consider the morally wrong thing.
I served on a jury a tad over a year ago. In voir dire, the prosecuting attorney asked if anyone had strong opinions on guns, as a firearm was present during the alleged crime. At least one person said that guns essentially belong only in the hands of police and the military, and I believe another wanted firearms banned altogether. The prosecuting attorney then asked if anyone else had strong opinions on guns; I then raised my hand. I explained that one could say that I was on the other end of the spectrum- We The People are the original Department of Homeland Security, and always the most important one. And that is why the Second Amendment exists. Now with that right comes a responsibility, and one must exercise it properly. They then asked something to the effect that if I disagreed with the law, would I still uphold my oath? I then explained that if I believed the law was unconstitutional, that I would probably violate my oath. I was NOT excused from jury duty. But did the prosecuting attorney suspect that I knew about jury nullification? YOU BET. They were extremely careful not to sensationalize the presence of a firearm. Nonetheless, the defendant was convicted. Which brings up another matter: I do NOT believe that so-called "special verdicts" have any business being applied to ANY right, including the right to keep and bear arms. It denies true justice by prohibiting the jury to consider ALL of the facts and ALL of the evidence in the trial, whether physical or circumstantial. Enough said.
Your example of reckless driving charge for spinning tires would mean if there was some sand or the road was wet spinning your tires would get you charged. The instruction was a true and JUST verdict. about 20 years ago I was on grand jury for 3 days per week for 4 months in Maricopa County AZ. There was a man passing out jury notification fliers almost every day. As far as I know he was never arrested.
You may be interested to know that in Georgia our Constitution has a provision expressly stating that the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts. (Bill of Rights, Paragraph XI a). IANAL, but I would read this as at least allowing jury nullification.
@@Raggzzaug11 Hell, I'd vote to nullify without hesitation if it's the right thing to do. There's nothing the Powers That Be can do about it, either. Tee hee.
@@jeffbybee5207 Armchair warriors and their "last line of defense is second amendment!" attitudes don't know how a modern police force works. Your AR-15 isn't going to win against the SWAT team that gets called in to deal with you because you brandished your AR-15 over something you didn't like.
@@blackvic5157 That's not entirely true, in many cases the Judge can override the Jury's decision with a what's known as a JNOV - Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict. Of course, doing so is almost certainly going to cause said justice uncountable headaches in paperwork, reviews, and appeals, but there is something that can be done about it.
Seems to me that following the jury oath to return a true and just verdict could require a not guilty verdict even if the charges were true but the law or the application of the law was unjust. Just being defined as: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. An unjust law should never be upheld by a jury. Regardless of the written law the jury is well within its rights to declare that the accused is not guilty of breaking any law. Of course a Judge overturning a guilty verdict of a jury is well respected in law even if rarely done.
If a judge ordered a jury I was in that it was not able to nullify that action would immediately turn my verdict to not guilty. I'm stubborn AF we can sit here in deliberation all year idgaf.
Sometimes a "true and just verdict" is standing in the way of the powerful, looking their servants on the bench in the eye and saying not today. It should be a part of every citizen's educational upbringing to alert them that they have the right to say, yes this person did break the law and no we aren't going to hold them accountable.
According to Chief Justice John Jay, in one of the few (perhaps only?) jury trials ever heard before the Supreme Court: 'It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision. ' The judge is entitled to an opinion on what the law is, but that's all he is entitled to: an opinion. The jury and the jury alone can determine what the law actually is and has no obligation to respect either the opinion of the judge or statutes passed by the legislature in determining what is law. This is the very nature of the common law and what distinguishes it from civil law, where civil authorities actually do have the right to determine what the law is.
So, I realize this is a belated question but - relating to the story you told - can you be held in "contempt of court" by a judge for something you are doing entirely outside of their courtroom? And does a judge have the power to summon you to their specific courtroom to be tried *by them*? That all seems somehow wrong. If a judge has a problem with something you are doing, shouldn't they have to file a civil complaint or call the cops so *some other judge* can hear that case?
I have been dismissed IMMEDIATELY and escorted from the courthouse several times when called to jury duty because, when asked if I would follow the rules as explained by the judge, and I say that I will make a decision based on the facts as presented and if I agree with the laws that are being applied. I absolutely am advocating for jury nullification.
In all of the shows and movies that depict courtrooms and trials, never have I ever heard the detailed instructions given to a jury. This makes you more than as lawyer. You are a teacher, You are revealing information that I , for one, found fascinating.
In the words of the legal scholar Olavus Petri from the middle of the 16th century, first printed in 1616. "What is neither just nor reasonable, cannot be law; it is for the reasonableness of law, that it is accepted. .. All law shall shall be applied with wisdom, for the greatest justice is the greatest injustice, and mercy shall be included in all justice. .. The good of the common man is the supreme law; therefore what is found to be good for the common man shall be considered law, even though the law is written to suggest otherwise." The law can be tyrannical, and it is the duty of a judge, and a jury to interpret it with mercy. The interpretation of the law is the duty of the judicial branch, and jurors are part of that institution and carry that duty, when they serve.
I have a problem with "equal protection of the law" because it's so selectively applied. If I'm on a jury with a "hate crime" enhancement, I'll vote not guilty all day long.
I understand how you feel but consider this, if someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their starving family they have broken the law but most of us would want to be lenient because we sympathize with their motivation. If they steal some jewelry because they want to look 'super fly' we are less likely to sympathize. Although the crime was the same the motivations of the person committing it influence our feelings towards the perpetrator. The idea behind "hate crime" legislation is that a crime motivated by bigotry deserves a harsher punishment because it's such a nasty reason for committing that crime.
@@studentofsmith Specious. A "hate crime" charge is mostly just something the prosecutors tack on to get White convicts harsher sentences. You can tell because even in the most blatant attacks _against_ White victims, it is exceedingly unlikely that the (Black) attacker gets charged with a hate crime.
Steve's point about overcharging is what often drives jurors to do things like this. When the potential penalty is so draconian that it outweighs the crime, what jury doesn't consider whether justice would truly be served with a conviction? It seems like prosecutors sometimes bring this upon themselves. It might not be legal or right, but if you ask most average citizens whether law or justice is more important, they will say justice.
Jury question for you. I live in St Louis Missouri. About ten years ago I was called for and selected for jury duty. It was a case of a contractor who was in a client's home using a long ladder which, due to a slippery stone floor, slid while he was on the ladder, causing him to be injured. I don't remember the details, but he was sueing the client for his injury. We (as the jury) listened to a full day of the case then returned the next day (I discovered free coffee and donuts for the jury 😁). We listened to the case for about another hour, then the judge suddenly ordered the jury out. When we were brought back in, it was explained to us the judge had made a decision (I apologise, this is where my understanding of legal terms along with my memory and understanding are fuzzy at best, so please bear with me), made a judgement in favor of the defendant, then released the jury. Case over. I thought (with my ZERO legal training LOL) after a trial started with a jury, at that point only the jury could make the decision. I suspect the judge must have heard something that made the decision apparent to him. I'm sure this is something simple for you, but I don't understand what happened. Can you explain how the judge could override the jury (if that's the right term)? Thanks!
Actually, in a civil trial, that's not unheard of. If the plaintiff fails to put in a possibly winnable case, the judge can Direct a Credit in favor of the defendant.
So, if I set up a big ol' TV in front of the courthouse, and played this video all day, which one of use would get locked up for uttering the two taboo words?
In California, jury nullification has been declared improper by the California Supreme Court. See People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 779. As a practical matter, if someone was to do it and keep his or her mouth shut, and just claimed that s/he did not find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, no one would ever know or be able to challenge it (Note: I am not advocating such a practice).
I've actually been on a jury that implemented nullification, at my behest. Domestic violence case, virtually no evidence against the defendant, he had already spent 6 months in jail awaiting trial, so I persuaded fellow jury members (not hard to do, they want to go home) that justice had already been served and we found him not guilty.
That's not really nullification. If there was "virtually no evidence", that's simply a normal verdict that the prosecution didn't meet their burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt). Nullification is when there is plenty of evidence against the defendant, and the jury acquits despite the fact that it was appropriately proven.
@@JeffDG Considering the jury was ready to issue a guilty verdict and the guy was likely guilty to some extent, the fact he had already served what I considered ample punishment, justice was served at that point, in my opinion and, with a bit of persuasion, the opinion of the majority of jurors. I would say without me on the jury he would been convicted, almost certainly.
Years ago in Oklahoma City there was a drug-est that was held up. He shot one of the robbers and chased the other robber out of the drug store while shooting at him. He return in side the drug store, got another gun and shot the first robber that was ling on the floor. He then went into the back of the drug store to see if any of his employees were injured. He was found guilty of murder and is now in prison. I think this is a good example where Jury nullification should have been used. He shoot the first robber again to be sure he was dead before he "turned" his back on him in order to check on his employees who were screaming and crying in the back room. What do you think?
Once the person is down and out of the fight you had better not shoot them again unless they come after you, or you will likely be charged with murder. You can also be charged for chasing and shooting at someone who is fleeing and is no threat anymore. In most states.
I'm from Okc and remember that case. While I dodn't agree that the pharmacist should be able to go back and shoot the man who is down on the floor. Something about being emotionally distraught and heat of the moment could fit in here and something that was probably discussed and deliberated. I feel that those that wish to carry and use a lethal weapon, even in self defense, should be held responsible for its use even (especially) in times of emotional response. Now if he downed the first guy with a taser and then decided to come back and give the guy an extra jolt for "good measure" I could see a jury nullifying over excessive force.
Saw a case once where the defendant was on trial for assault with a deadly weapon. The facts of the case were that he had taken it away from a would-be assailant and smacked him over the head with it. While some jury members wanted to follow the letter of the law, the majority strongly disagreed. Verdict: Not Guilty.
@@SovereignStatesman Who knows with juries? Despite the Voir Dire process, many jurors still come in with their own personal biases. IIRC, there were older men who probably surmised they would do the same thing as the defendant under the circumstances. The prosecutor wore a badly concealed colostomy bag, which may have been a distraction. The women, no doubt, took into consideration the ages of the parties involved (teenagers). Plus, there was a racial element (Hispanic and Black). The argument was that once the weapon was taken away, there was no more threat and the defendant should have walked away, instead of assaulting the plaintiff, who was now the victim. Seems the majority disagreed.
The guy that was held in contempt for the pamphlets was simply an example of a judge that doesn't like anyone questioning his authority. Jury nullification is legal. No one, not even a judge, can force you to think a certain way about what is right and wrong. Contempt was a completely dimwitted approach from the judge. But if the judge had him arrested for some law regarding pamphlet distribution, that is a different thing. Just proves some judges are imbeciles.
I hate to be a cynic. But many individuals who come to learn about Jury Nullification do it be rejected for Jury Duty. The second time I was called for Jury Duty, I expressed to the layers and judge that I know as a juror I don't have to condemn someone for breaking a law that I didn't agree with. Needless to say, I was not selected for service and is been years since I've been summoned for it.
But what happens when the legal "True" verdict conflicts with it being a "Just" verdict? If the law is unjust, or is being applied in an unjust or malicious way, or the peculiar circumstances of the case indicate that what the person did was normal & reasonable in that situation, why should a jury endorse that miscarriage of justice by voting as the judge has instructed? If the Constitutional right of trial by jury is to mean anything, then the jury needs to be able to apply common sense to the facts in evidence to determine if punishment is required/justified. Otherwise the jury is just a rubber stamp for the government.
That's my opinion. The point of the jury is that they're one prong of the justice system that serves to protect us from the government. The idea that they HAVE to apply the law as it is written is arrogant grandstanding by judges and lawyers.
Great topic. Thanks for covering it. Interesting. By the way, I didn't subscribe for a long time, because I kept thinking "This video is interesting, but surely there can't be many interesting law-related topics". I was wrong. Great job!
Interesting video. I learned about jury nullification during civics courses in grade school and again later in high school. I also remember them covering both type 1 and type 2 jury nullification. Maryland courts are very careful to bracket their language when addressing potential jurors.
Up until 1980 in Maryland, a judges told jury's that the instructions given to them were advisory and one judge, in a 1967 murder case, gave the following instructions: "you, under our system, in criminal cases are at liberty to disagree with the court's interpretation of the law. You shall determine what the law is and then apply the law to the facts as you find them to be." In 1980, the court of appeals found such instructions unconstitutional and forbid the future practice. A 2012 court of appeals ruling applied this retroactively, resulting the release of a number of convicted felons. Jury's interpretation of law and not just fact works both ways.
While Michigan -- and I'm sure other jurisdictions -- may claim that the jury has no right to nullify or ignore the judge's instructions, I argue that while the state and the courts may have the right and responsibility to inform the jury of their task and educate them on the law, they have no right to _instruct_ them in their duty. The jury has ultimate deciding power in the courts, and no one may tell them how to decide.
Steve may not advocate for jury nullification, but I will. If you find a law unjust or it's application unfair in the case I would encourage you to vote your conscience. The last time one of my coworkers served I explained the concept to them before they were selected (it may have been after, it was over a year ago).
I was recently called up for jury duty in Federal court. Civil cases. (3) They wanted the jury to select an amount for monetary damages. The paying parties (Larger Corporations) just weren't happy with what their contracts (smaller Corporations) called for , apparently. Large $$$ was to be distributed. First. I found it against my Rights to be hijacked on a particular day at a particular time. Otherwise, I would have found it to be an interesting experience on a rainy less useful day based on my occupation. The judge gave some instructions during jury selection. It included that you needed to base your decision on the LAW rather than whether you agreed or disagreed with the law. I told him that I didn't think that I would be able to do that. I went on to state that , from my understanding, Large corporations draw up laws and pay lobbyists to schmooze Congressmen to help "regulate their industry. And under the guise of SAFETY. eliminate some of their competition. The judge said I shouldn't have any issues with the laws in this case. Needless to say. I got sent home soon thereafter. The others that were eliminated had more business savvy than the masses. The room, when we left. The rest of the people remaining for jury selection were people that I would consider Sheeple. The unwashed masses. If it were MY trial. I'd rather have a JURY of my PEERS.
It is impossible to have a "true and just verdict" when a prosecutor is trying to apply a law in a way that is valid according to the letter of the law but glaringly unjust. Jury nullification is important for purposes of justice in situations where lawmakers either fail to anticipate ways that laws could be applied unjustly or knowingly choose not to address dangers of injustice, and prosecutors decide to follow the letter of the law instead of pursuing justice.
California went to a “one day or one trial” jury system years ago, making it _much_ harder to get out of jury duty. I learned that they still don’t want people who know anything on juries. Telling them you are an engineer seems to get you dismissed pretty quickly. So the rule still applies about the only people serving on juries are the ones too dumb to get out of it I’ve always wondered what would happen if you told the judge, honestly, “I am aware of jury nullification and I may not be able to base my verdict solely on the evidence presented and the law as you explain it to us.” You’re being honest, and telling the judge before hand (and hopefully away from the other jurors so as not to contaminate them). Would he toss you in jail for contempt anyway?
I wouldn't try it. Keep your mouth shut till you hear the case if you are selected. If you don't agree with the law both vote guilty but I would never use the words jury nullification either.
Editor of back woods home did just that and was droped from three jury's but was still forced to come every day he was called and waste the two weeks time he was in the jury pool
Several state constitutions (Oregon, Indiana, Maryland, ...) Include a statement like this from Oregon. "-In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.-" The idea goes back to common law. The jury, not the judge has the ultimate power to determine what the law is.
Certainly not contempt of court. Certainly not jury tampering. Obviously freedom of speech. Jury nullification serves the exact purpose that it is most likely to be utilized for: when a law is teally stupid and cannot be justly applied to the specific details of the specific case.
The jury shouldn't be writing the laws. How would you feel about the opposite happening (the jury thinking that although the actions taken aren't technically against the last, the defendant deserves to be punished anyway)?
@@user-bc7cb8uu7e Blackstone's ratio: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." If one is applying that then the first criteria would be did the defendant do anything wrong followed by was his action prohibited by law which would mean jury nullification if applied should only flow in favor of the defense.
@@theyaden Depends on how you define guilty. If guilty is defined based on whatever the jury thinks is right and wrong, it could still be used either way. If guilty is determined by the law purely, jury nullification should never happen. I guess what you want is for guilty to be that you did something illegal that the jury also believes is immoral, but I think this is a dangerous way to enforce the law, especially with many of the biases juries tend to show. It's much better to have the law written correctly than to expect each jury to rewrite it as they please.
@@user-bc7cb8uu7e Ultimately this is why the right to a jury of your piers is guaranteed within the US constitution. It is meant to be a safeguard against tyranny. I thought I was being pretty clear about it being both the jury feeling you had done wrong and additionally that the law forbids the action in question. If a jury holds to those two duties it is a reasonable system. If we blindly convict without thought there is injustice and if we convict for things not forbidden there is also injustice.
I feel like jury nullification is essentially just that if the jury cannot render a verdict that is both true AND just, they simply return a just verdict regardless of truth. That is, it's the idea that if something is so unconscionable as a law so as to make any conviction rendered using it a gross miscarriage of justice (in the eyes of the jury), the jury just votes their conscience, essentially. I get why the cases are somewhat rare, as a law that's just unpleasant/should probably be repealed (in my opinion, for instance, if I were a juror), I would still likely enforce, despite the sour taste. It's only if there's a law that's just grossly, obviously unjust that I could justify doing something like jury nullification. I can't really immediately think of anything off the top of my head, but it's the sort of thing where you'd know it if you saw it, I would think
I don't understand why judges and prosecutors find jury nullification so offensive? We have a system that is designed to let 9 guilty people go free for every one found guilty. Isn't jury 'nullification' just one more safeguard against putting innocent people in jail? If the jury has an absolute right to rule any way they want, why is it a crime to tell them that? Why can't I, as a defense attorney, inform the jury that there are no consequences for exercising their right to vote their conscience? I would think that all Americans would rejoice in a system that has one, last, check on prosecutorial misconduct and a perversion of the law.
Seems like a cop out to me. Jury nullification is an inherit part of a jury system. You can’t separate a jurors bias to the context and law being cited from their belief on the what happened. And it is a civil rights issue because Americans have a right to a trial by a jury of their peers. If it was only the facts that needed to be determined and the law had to be upheld no matter the potential unjust cruelty of the context in which it was violated, then we wouldn’t need a jury system. A judge can review evidence, listen to arguments, and rule on the likely guilt just as accurately as a committee of regular people. Probably more so. Why isn’t it jury of legal experts? Why isn’t it a jury or professional jurors with degrees in criminal investigation and scientific backgrounds? I don’t think ANYONE would trust their peers, ordinary men and women, to discern the truth of a case better than someone highly trained and specializing in the subject. So what do your peers have to offer if not superior discernment? Empathy. That’s it. And what can empathy bring to a determination of guilt? The justice that is only available in considering the context of a laws violation. Courts might be able to write unenforceable rules on what a jury must do, but they can’t prevent jury nullification without abolishing the jury system. And I say yes, you have a legal right to do something that you can’t legally be investigated for, let alone compelled or punished. It doesn’t matter if the courts deny it. You still have that right.
Double Jeopardy states that once a person is found Not Guilty of a Crime, they can NEVER be tried for that Crime again. So what happens if the reason for the Not Guilty Verdict was Jury Tampering - i.e.: multiple members of the Jury were told "find Not Guilty or we'll kill you and your Family!" for example. If that can be Proven, can that Defendant be Retried since the Verdict isn't legitimate?
There was a case here in Michigan where a kid in a wheel chair was busted for marijuana. The judge ruled outside of the jury’s presence that he could not use his medical marijuana card as an affirmative defense because he was like two grams over the limit of 2.5 ounces. The idiot prosecutor asked his mother when she was on the stand what the kid used for pain medication and she answered medical marijuana. The judge held her in contempt and put her in jail for a day or two. But once the cat was out of the bag the jury voted not guilty. I would love to had known what was said behind those closed doors but I suspect that jury would have had some bad things to say about that judge and prosecutor. I do agree with jury nullification. Some of these laws are an overreach by the state.
That's exactly a situation where my conscience would soundly trump my oath. I will not 'disregard' anything I believe to be true. Whatever I hear or see will get weighed.
Thank you Steve. Some people that feel its wrong to educate. You obviously did not advocate. I am a security expert. If I say a lightweight nylon rope ladder can defeat a 30 foot “wall” in about two minutes, does that make me somehow anti-American, or just stating a fact of an expert?
In my jury instructions (Indiana) I was told that if the evidence was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I MUST vote not guilty. If the evidence showed guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I MAY vote guilty.
What of a juror has knowledge of a subject. Going by your example of the handgun if a juror knows a gun has a flaw are they allowed to educate or must they simply keep it to themselves and vote how they see fit?
That is similar to the argument of mistranslation in the court. Let's say a non-English speaking witness is testifying in his native tongue. A court-appointed interpreter is translating into English the testimony of the witness. Mistakenly, the interpreter chooses the wrong English word for a key element of the testimony, ie they translated 'Shout' into 'said' or 'shove' to 'push.' A juror happens to speak the language of the witness and recognizes the mistranslation. Can the juror inform the jury of the mistranslation? It sounds like the juror may not inform the others and has to keep it quiet.
@@whiterabbit2786 actually this was on an episode of Law & Order and caused a mistrial because yes apparently the jurors supposed to keep their mouth shut. And what was even funnier is they had the translator in Chambers while they were questioning the juror and the translator admitted she made a mistake and instead of just admitting to the jury that she had made a mistake and his interpretation was correct it was declared a mistrial.
The only real question for a juror is what does conscience demand, and if you need a pamphlet to figure that out then you've got a problem. "And if you go to Heaven for doing your conscience, and I go to Hell for not doing mine, will you come with me for fellowship?" A Man For All Seasons (1966).
O.J. is a bad example. The jury didn't really have to nullify - a ton of evidence got thrown out because the LAPD botched the case so badly there wasn't much left to support a conviction. O.J. was obviously guilty as hell, but the police made the mistake of trying to frame a guilty man instead of just playing the case straight and by the book. They would have gotten him easily if they had.
Don't forget the sword cuts both ways. Jury nullification can and has been used to subject innocent men to prison or worse. When a jury spares a good man the wrath of a bad law they do nothing to solve the problem. There is a clear process for dealing with unjust laws. But that process requires someone to be convicted and appeal that conviction at the highest level. If a jury nullifies itself in a case where there is clear injustice they are eliminating a powerful opportunity to remedy the unjust law.
@@jeffbybee5207 That assumes that our lawmakers know about it. Even if congressmen spent a portion of their day reading case studies, how would they know if jury nullification happened? The recorded court filings wont include the jury's deliberations.
"How binding is an oath that is taken under duress? Jury Duty is not voluntary. The entire process is compulsory." - Only for those who don't wish to serve on a jury. In that case, you have a valid point.
@@dkozisek Sure. But if you are one of the kind who sees serving on a jury as being a part of your "Civic Duty" , you wouldn't see it as being compulsory...
Does jury oath in the federal court include "true and *just* verdict" words? If a juror feels the guilty verdict would not be *just*, could they argue that a guilty verdict would violate the oath?
i dont like going into court for jury duty and they start throwing vows you are to swear to without thinking about. It's like raise your hand blah blah blah everybody says yes and has no idea what they have just sworn to. If I'm gonna swear to something i want to know in advance what it is so i can study it. I really resented that. Wonder what they would think if you asked for copies of the vows before you come in so you can study them? I am not a sheep.
It'd be very easy to get rid of jury nullification. Just get rid of juries and have all trials be bench trials. There must be a reason why the Founders didn't do that.
I am an attorney and actually do advocate jury nullification. I believe juries have the right to be judges of both law and facts. Before the Civil War, Boston juries routinely acquitted defendants who had assisted slave escapes. Over 200 years ago the English courts had ruled in the Bushel case that jurors who acquitted religious dissenters could not be held in contempt for disregarding a court instruction to convict the defendants. I believe the public should be aware of the Bushel case. Also, if one wants to be excused from serving on a jury, just upfront say "I believe in jury nullification. I will not promise to follow the court's instructions, because I believe that the jury is entitled to judge both the law and facts." You'll be excused every time! 👍
I completely agree. If "We the people" are indeed the authors and founders of government then "We the people" retain the right to alter, reform, or abolish government as we see fit...usually that is done through the ballot box, it can also happen in the jury box, and if the first two fail...they retain the right to do so by way of the ammo box. Secondly, Pattern Jury Instructions are usually compiled exclusively by judges based upon case law decisions and statutory guidelines enacted by politicians who likely had little or no input in authoring the underlying legislation which more often than not has no public input from the public at large. Invariably, the Pattern Jury Instruction manuals will state rather clearly somewhere in the front of the book that they are "non-binding" but should be used by the judges so there is consistency in the way justice is administered throughout state trial courts. Jury nullification is simply a mechanism whereby the people can signal to those vested with the "high powers" of government that we disagree with them. As such, I would argue that "We he People" are at all times the ultimate judge of both the facts AND the law...otherwise they are subservient to a ruling class of politicians and judges who rarely, if ever, police themselves.
Any juror who were to mention nullification would probably be dismissed by the Judge. In Louisiana this was relatively common for "good ol' boys". Today Judges (in Jury instructions) instruct to "consider the charges and apply the law as I give it to You" to avoid this very thing.
@@xs10z I am a self taught paralegal of 34 years. Jury nullification is one of my passions. I was quite shocked that Steve even brought up this topic. See rfcarlson1's quotes below. Thank you for your response.
I was on tuff jury once. It was a assult/sexual assault charge. When it came to the sexual assault, There was 4 level of charges. We had to decide what and how it happend based on evidence. It was tuff because you really had to been there to know for sure what happend.
I went to one jury trial and I believe there was jury misconduct. However, there were no instructions as to what to do in this instance, so everyone stayed quiet. What are normal instructions in this case? No one wants to rat out on one of their jurors, unless they get replaced.
Why would you NOT RAT out one of your juror mates? You do not know them.. You owe them nothing.. If what they are doing will reflect on you, how could you not speak up and say hey THAT is not right.. If they end up hating you?!?!? Who the frack cares.. but.. but.. I do not want to be known as a rat?!?!?!? To which I would say you are not a rat lol.. They are not your people.. They are not in your circle of anything.. They are strangers.. If a stranger were to get up on the table and take a dump and then the officers came in and asked who was it that took a dump on the table? Would you feel so attached to all the people, you did not know, in that jury room to not point and say "THAT idiot"?
Thanks for that Steve, and I would be curious what your opinion might be on Jurors being instructed by a judge to decide on evidence and not the law and possibly being threatened or charged with contempt for asking for a judge for details regarding the law and possibly charged with jury tampering as a juror for questioning the law and expressing an opinion regarding the law during deliberation or in the courtroom? I Ask because during a trial I where a person was being tried for reckless driving and from my previous experience as a witness in a trial for reckless driving and attempted manslaughter the definition of reckless driving was explained and debated. From the arresting officer's statements, reports and witness testimony I did not hear anything that as per statute would qualify as reckless driving. The judge however from the start said as jurors we were only to decide if witness testimony was "True". I asked the judge if she could define 'True' in the context of the case but she appeared angered and did not respond. During deliberation, I mentioned that from my previous experience as a witness in a reckless driving case that the witnesses did not provide any testimony that would seem to meet the definition of what I understood Reckless Driving to mean, and that nothing they claimed he did seem reckless or dangerous, and I asked if a copy of the law could be provided. At which point the Judge called us back to the courtroom and reiterated that we were not deciding Law but the evidence was True or not, and that as a Jury we were not instructed to decide to decide guilt or innocence as it pertained to the law, and that any mention of matters of Law in the Jury room would be considered contempt and possibly Jury Tampering. During a continuation of the lengthy Deliberation, I and another juror concluded that given the conflicted and questionable witness testimony, and that the arresting officer did not witness the alleged act and testified that he found some of the witnesses claims to be questionable, I had to deliver delivered a verdict of 'Not guilty'. However, upon delivery of the verdict, the judge singled me out and asked why I delivered a verdict of 'Not Guilty' to which I replied: "Given the evidence, I do not believe the accused drove recklessly". When asked to explain further, I said something to the effect that primarily based on the most credible witness stating she saw the accused of the entire time of the incident and he did not appear to endanger anyone, leave the lane markers or even be speeding. At which point the Judge said, "I instructed you not to decide on matters of law but if witness testimony was credible and as you now say you decided as a matter of law I find you in contempt of court and will direct you be remanded to custody!" At which point the Jury foreman who was a former practising trial attorney spoke up and said: "Your Honour, what I believe this juror meant to say was that he did not believe the evidence was credible and therefore did not rise to the burden of proof that the accused violated the law." The judge then asked me 'Is that true?" to which I said: "Yes your honour, I believe that fairly describes my reasons" at which point she said "Well, there was much about the testimony that was conflicted and incomplete, and if you affirm that you did not decide as a matter of Law I will release you" At which point I said "I affirm". My concern over this experience was how easily as Juror one could be deprived of liberty and have one's life essentially ruined for performing a civic duty in a manner one believed he or she was performing lawfully, and how a technically innocent person could be convicted in a court of law when his or her actions did not rise to the meet the definition of the crime and that in the case described and that the Judge may have acted unlawfully, and I would appreciate any information or opinions you care to share? Thanks,
