Police officers have officer discretion , prosecutors have prosecutorial discretion, judges have instructions to the jury. Where does that leave the people ? Nullification is your power.
I have a (not so) amusing anecdote about Jury nullification (in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia) As a junior criminal defence lawyer, I represented a man charged with murdering another inmate inside a maximum security prison called Goulburn Correctional Centre. The deceased was serving time for a string of heinous crimes - one of them involving him and fellow ‘5 T’ gang members (ie an Asian Street gang) approaching a pair sitting in a car at a ‘lover’s lane’ on the Georges River, assaulting and tying the young man to a tree, then gang graped and murdering his young female partner in front of him. The deceased was a powerful person in prison (due to his gang affiliation) and had achieved the position of 'sweeper' (an "in house" jail position of additional authority). One day in the prison’s tailor shop, he and another inmate tried to drag my client’s friend towards the toilet area. My client grabbed a large pair of scissors and stabbed the deceased relentlessly to all parts of his body - head, body, groin - 67 times in total. By all accounts, my client paused for several seconds during the attack - at which time the deceased was incapacitated - then recommenced stabbing. This could not be classed as ‘self defence’ under the law. My client saw a number of lawyers before me. Each of them strongly advised him to offer a plea of guilty to manslaughter, which in my view was the correct advice given the information available to them at the time. I was later assigned a grant of Legal Aid for the matter and, like I do in all serious cases, subpoenaed a whole range of documents - including 3,000 pages of prison medical and administrative materials, which I meticulously reviewed. Low and behold, the medical files contained reports predating the killing which suggested that the deceased had zzexuly assaulted my client on at least one prior occasion, and had reported that the deceased had been doing this to other inmates. When I confronted my client with this information, he broke down in tears. Armed with this information, we proceeded to trial at Darlinghurst Supreme Court where I was under the instruction of now-retired criminal defence barrister Andrew Barrie. Our case strategy was to put as much disparaging information about the deceased before the jury as possible - his despicable past crimes, his abuse of power in prison and the evidence about his conduct towards my client and it worked. Despite the fact that 67 stab wounds with a pause in between would amount to excessive self defence (at best) the jury found my client not guilty of the single charge against him - murder. Watching the jury during that trial, it was apparent they were disgusted with the deceased and his conduct - to the point where they perhaps thought his demise represented justice, despite the state of the evidence . In a career spanning over 2 decades this is the only case i've delt with that In my opinion falls into the category of ‘jury nullification’. PS Happy New Year! and all the best from Sydney, Australia.
If a jury cannot nullify legislation then precedent is set by the legislature and the judges and this would not be a common law precedent, the very fact that we call common law precedent implies that precedent is set by the jury
There is a legal maxim that all political power is inherent in the people, the legislative, executive, and judiciary. These powers are delegated to the government to exercise in the name of the people because these powers inherently belong to the people. Chief Justice John Marshall, in the Marbury vs. Madison opinion, set the foundation for the best-known power of the Supreme Court, Judicial Review. This power can only be exercised by the Supreme Court because it is part of the inherent power of the people. The people may take up and exercise their power, judicial review, as an empaneled jury. The jury has the power to not simply judge the facts of the case but the law as well. The people have the power of judicial review and can nullify the law, as they see fit. This is part of the principle that the people have the right to alter or amend their government. The nullification of a law is one way to alter or amend a government act the people find has been exercised without authority or exceeded the delegated power. This may also include executive misconduct like the prosecutor as mentioned in the presentation and may even extend to the judge if the jury believes the judge exceeded their delegated powers. That is the basis for jury nullification. The Supreme Court cannot exercise a power that has not been delegated to it by the people. The people cannot delegate a power unless that power inherently belongs to them. Test this against the founding documents. Don't take my word for it. Your State may have a clause in the State Constitution affirming that all political power is inherent in the people. The people have the right to alter or amend the government. The government does not have the power to say the people can not. Some argue that the amending and altering must be done through representation. This undermines the sovereignty of the people to act directly in a way they deem most beneficial to the security of the rights. Principals don't have to explain their actions to their agents. Sorry, I can be long winded.
How you vote is how you vote. I certainly do. I don't require anyone's permission and at no point would I allow retaliation because of my juror's vote.
Great information, Counselor! While I agree that Pastor Wood was exercising our (not just HIS) First-Amendment right to inform the public about jury nullification, the Michigan Supreme Court shouldn't have ruled on Constitutional grounds since the issue was purely statutory in his case. Yes, it would be nice if they'd gone a step further **in this case;** however, asking any appellate court to rule beyond the question at bar is asking for judicial activism.
Well, in that case Pastor Wood had made his constitutional argument, and having another court affirm the constitutional right in that case would have been more affirmation. In the alternative, if that Court had ruled against Pastor Wood on the constitutionality, then it would have been grounds to take it to the federal appellate courts, and possibly the Supreme Court since it had the potential to create a split among the courts.
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC You know, I'm really tempted to exclaim, "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence," because I didn't know from the information available to me that Pastor Wood had argued constitutionality. All I knew was that the Michigan Supreme Court had ruled that he couldn't have been influencing a jury since the individuals were not (yet) jurors. Anyway, I enjoyed the video as always!
But dont they kick a bunch of people out if they "refuse to deliberate" or something like that? I know they play a lot of games to get anyone not in their favor off the jury at that stage
There's two ways a juror can generally be struck during voir dire (the process where potential jurors are selected) - 'strike for cause' and 'peremptory challenges'. 'Strike for cause' is where either side can ask that a juror be removed and is unlimited, however the attorney asking for the strike for cause must state a reason why they believe the juror cannot be fair and unbiased and the strike must be approved by the judge. For example, if the trial is for an African American defendant, and the prospective juror said something during voir dire questioning like 'all black people are guilty', that would be eligible for a strike for cause. A 'peremptory challenge' however is where each attorney, both the defense and the prosecution, is allowed a certain number of jury member strikes for any reason or no reason, with the only rule being that you can't use peremptory challenges to remove all of one race, ethnicity, gender etc from the jury pool.
Having a NAMED VICTIM is that very balance between the two concerns. If there was no NAMED VICTIM, then there was no crime..... "Society" is NOT a NAMED VICTIM.
Not even a little bit. In fact, because there is so much caselaw out there discussing jury nullification, I wouldn't be a very good attorney if I chose to ignore it.
Don't forget that this concept goes both ways. Jurys can and have convicted without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The more uneducated the population, the better you can mold the outcome you want.
When former D.C. Mayor, Marion Berry was on trial, the Judge in the case pointed out that the prosecution presented a clear case with video evidence...but that he was aware the jury would not convict under any circumstances based on Berry's claims that his arrest and prosecution were racially motivated...jury nullification is alive and well...
"Jury nullification," Hmmmmm. Isn't that like what happened after the siege and destruction of that Branch Davidian place back in April 1993? The jury found the survivors not guilty of all weapons-related charges, and yet the judge cranked the firearms multipliers into all the sentences anyway, right? 🇺🇲
@@debbie4503 it’s because how white people treated blacks. They were beaten or killed over and over and the court did nothing. Most of the jurors were black and it was like revenge to get back at the whites for everything they’ve done to blacks. It’s on Netflix and they even interviewed the jurors.
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC Is something like it discussed in legal circles? The idea that the Supreme Court can rule against the law for the defendant, because of some sympathy for the defendant or out of concern for some political cause even when the defendant is liable by law.
The video is mislabeled by intent or ignorance. The actual term is Jury Discretion. Nullification term is the judicial "N---" derisve reference to the core Constitutional basis of the court and enforcement practices. In any correct court room the judge has extremely limited duties. The jury has all of the power. Research online will describe jury duties and obligations. The current Fascist court room and law enforcement practices are criminal and liable for felony prosecution. This is not exaggeration. Please do the research online.
This video seems extremely close to the much older video done by the excellent CGP Grey… hmm. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uqH_Y1TupoQ.htmlsi=4-JDry2vPKhlm9t3
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC in topics yes, except when the topic is new… I don’t think anyone wrote about AI until Sci fi novels came about. For me though this video was a little too similar to several others. Creators I hope should try to bring something new.
All situations are not " black or white," they all have " gray" areas. The "why" is a huge part of the reason something happened and must bear weight in making a decision.
