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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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?
Color me shocked! Knew about jury nullification. Knew a lawyer couldn’t advocate for it in court. Had no idea you could be arrested outside of a courthouse for it.
It's my understanding that the most frequent use of jury nullification was around prohibition. That "should" in the federal instructions makes that sound much more plausible.
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.
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.
I am from a state in which the State Constitution specifically grants the right of jury nullification in both civil and criminal matters. The courts have therefore adjusted the usual instructions to include words to the effect that you are here to do justice. The "do justice" compromise charge was arrived at after a lot of discussion between the legislature and the judiciary. I doubt that any juror has ever read the State Constitution but I have. If I were in a jury pool and was being questioned during voir dire, I would ask to speak with the judge privately out of the earshot of others and tell him and counsel that, based ONLY on the evidence presented at trial, there is at least a possibility that I might exercise my right to nullify.
I was a juror on a case that should have taken a few weeks at most. The Judge allowed the case to drag on for 8 months. It appeared they were trying to fatigue the jurry to its breaking point. The jurry considered holding the judge in contempt. It was for some jurors very traumatic.
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"?
I hope you haven't already decided that. If a defendant has been shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have committed an illegal act, and there are no extenuating circumstances that morally require an acquittal, you really should vote for a guilty verdict. I've been a juror in two trials, and have been prepared to nullify if necessary, but in neither case was either the validity of the law, nor the circumstances of the case, such as to make nullification an issue.
When you mentioned Laura Kriho my ears pricked up. I live in Colorado, and looking at the current Bill of Rights I see ( Colo. Const. Art. Ii section 10) "... and in all suits and prosecutions for libel, the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact." To my way of thinking, a grand jury indictment is about as libelous as a document can be. Now allI have to do is remember not to SAY that during voir dire 😂 !
I believe in nullification. Why? Because our Founders did. But I believe that if you use it, you should search your conscience thoroughly before applying it. I find it particularly justifiable for guarding the Constitution. It's a way an individual can guard the Constitution equally as powerfully(well, maybe not quite) as the Supreme Court. For instance, laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment as one example.
Don't be Keith Wood :) Another good video Steve. I've known about jury nullification for many years but never knew it was prosecutable within the legal system, I always thought it was a legitimate thing you could (and maybe should) tell jurors.
The interesting thing is that nobody asks the question as to why jurors should be part of trials. It is just a matter of FOLLOWING THE LAW, and condemning someone for breaking a particular law, well then. . . lawers and judges can do that by themselves. They are the experts on laws! Why the third party needs to be there to be told: "ok he or she broke the law, now please go ahead and convict him or her so we can impose the corresponding punishment." Seems kind of stupid to me.
In essence, you are advocating trial by robots - cold, unthinking exactness to the written letter, without consideration of intent behind the law. (That is among the more common views people can take for the concept of administering law) I disagree with that view. I believe that every law is created to enforce an idea/intent. I believe our system was *intentionally created* with multiple layers of discretion to allow mercy or lessor penalties for generally well meaning and well behaved people and harsher for blatant & intentional negative behavior with disregard for the people around them. In support of what I suggest, note that most crimes or misdemeanors have - not a fixed sentence - but a range of sentences the judge can assign. The Judge has discretion built into the system - but is still limited to only his authority part (balance of powers). The judge not being allowed to rule on guilt is an important balance of power, limiting the harm from 1 person who could (in violation of their oaths of office) decide to start ruling with their own law. If they were allowed to judge law and guilt/innocence, then you have an instant tyrant waiting to happen: 1 person who can issue warrants, decide their own law, and convict people all at his own discretion. I am glad we don't live under that (except "preponderance of evidence" for "infractions"...but that's a whole discussion in itself). I'm glad we live in a society where a police officer *can* decide to issue a warning (if he thinks it is sufficient to change behavior), but *can* also instantly pull the license of someone speeding 120mph past an elementary school (disregarding the high risk of killing someone). Is that uneven/unfair enforcement of the law? Sure - but I'd rather it be good than fairy harsh!
@@ilikedota5 I kept calling the phone number to check to see if I needed to come to the courthouse, and they never had my name on the list. Also, the rules for jury duty at the federal courthouse specifically prohibited T-shirts, alas. :) Of course, I could have come in wearing a dress--that would've done the trick. :)
In some states (i.e. Georgia), state law says the jury is the arbiter of the facts AND the law. (In most states, the judge is the arbiter of the law and the jury is the arbiter of the facts.) So, in Georgia, the jury can agree with the facts as presented by the prosecutor but believe the law is unjust or being improperly applied and thus return a not-guilty verdict. Now, some judges may not like it and get really pissed if a juror mentions it, but it is the law.
"True and just verdict..." I think the word 'and' has heaps of weight here. If a guilty verdict requires it to be both true and just, then you are logically compelled to decide not guilty if it is either untrue or unjust.
Some time ago there was a book published about what jury’s and individuals on jury’s can do but are not made aware of, it was a interesting and eye opening book.
While not exactly the same thing, this reminded me of a time when I was on a jury, and the defendant was charged with escape, but was found not guilty because of the lack of the word "attempted", since he wasn't able to make it beyond the officer's reach.
I advocate for JN on the same grounds you say lie detectors are not impermissible in court even if they were 100% correct. My job as a juror is to make a decision and my reasons for doing that are mine and mine alone. If it is because I think the law is wrong, then it is because I think the law is wrong, but if I don't feel the law is wrong then it will not be because I feel the law is wrong. My one and only job is to take in the information given and make a decision based on that information and my own moral judgement on what is right.
Can you do a video on mandatory jury duty? Here in NY, most people will do anything possible to get out of jury duty because the pay is so low and they don't cover travel expenses.
I think the opinion of the Michigan court stating that juries “have the power, but not the right” may simply be due to under our Constitution, individual people have rights, and governments (or government agencies) are delegated powers. In the case of a jury, it is a group convened by the government to exercise a specific power, that is temporarily granted to them by the government.
Am I wrong to believe that Jury nullification was at issue in Crown v. William Penn, 1670, in which a jury returned a non-guilty verdict, but was forced to deliberate for several additional weeks because the judge had expressly ordered them to find Penn guilty? And am I also wrong in believing that the example of William Penn is why jury trials are a right under the constitution?
There were countless cases of both: juries that were told to convict and then arrested (or maltreated when they failed to do so) and famous jury trials. The notion of a jury goes back to the Magna Carta (at least for being a right) and has been part of the process ever since.
Steve: A question. *Would* a lawyer advocating jury nullification outside of a court setting (e.g. on a RUclips platform like yours) put that lawyer in any sort or degree of jeopardy?
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.
@@allenbooth5193 It could be argued that the implication is that the sheep was borrowed without permission... does joyriding apply to sheep?
@@allenbooth5193 The only way they could explain that away is if they were like "well actually we think it was his sheep all along."
@@allenbooth5193 no way! Thanks for explaining that.
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.
Apparently, it's quasi illegal to tell anyone about it. There's no actual law about it, but they will find a way to put you in jail if you do it.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
An unjust law is no law at all, thus, no law was broken.
The first rule of jury nullification is to not talk of jury nullification.
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.
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.
Wow how do we respect a system that charges a person for educating a person on their rights. So essentially the legal system is corrupt.
Better that there be a way to pay to learn your rights ... rather than have no way to learn about them at all
What happens in the deliberation room, stays in the deliberation room!
sadly not true when i was on a jury , the prosecutor interviewed some jurors after the trial. Separately , the judge did so as well.
WTF so the first amendment right was disregarded because a judge had his feelings hurt?
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.
@@jbtcajun5260 Well, then I guess he had no excuse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Many years ago in high school I watched a moot court and was bored to tears. You make the law sound interesting. So, I applaud you and your videos.
I love the Where’s Waldo with the $100 bill!
Since it's a $100, it's Where's Ben?
The jury is the last hope of a citizen, of course the state hates nullification.
Judges and prosecutors hate to have their power taken away !
@@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.
Jn isSecond to last check on tryanical government, last is second amendment
@@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.
@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.
Amen! Thank you!
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.
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.
Okay.
Next time say yes. Then do exactly what you want.
Best to keep that to yourself and use that knowledge in deliberation.
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.
The first rule of Jury Nullification is you don't talk about Jury Nullification.
😂
I do not know anything about law but can listen to your lectures for hours and hours 😂😂 good job man!
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.
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.
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.
Bravo.
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.
@@stevelehto Thank you for the reply! I never understood why or how that happened.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's far deeper than a problem, but I respect the fact that you wrote this.
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.
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.
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.
Fascinating topic. And juries need to know more about this.
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.
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.
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.
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).
O.J. walked!
Nullification is the whole point of juries.
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.
Courts don't want jurors, they want mushrooms. Keep them in the dark and feed them BS.
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.
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.
No, not imbeciles, just evil.
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.
Our founding fathers understood the evil of government.
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.
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?
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
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?
It's a fine line. If it was that important, the jury selection process would probably bring that up.
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.
I like how the bill is moving around from video to video.
If one wishes to EXERICSE his right to jury nullification, wouldn't it make sense NEVER to admit that he believes he has that right?
How binding is an oath that is taken under duress? Jury Duty is not voluntary. The entire process is compulsory.
One person's 'duress' is another person being a wienie....
@@atticstattic What a brainless response.
"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.
@@looneyburgmusic It is compulsory regardless of whether you want to be there or not.
@@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...
Can you argue on that piece of "true and just" verdict - i.e. yes, verdict is true, but UNjust because law itself is bogus/unjust/etc ?
We find the defendant not guilty your honor, but we want to tell him not to do it again.
What is one of the purported reasons for law(s)? Justice. What is one way unjust laws can be overcome? Nullification.
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?
So basically, a jury can reach a verdict that has nothing to do with the law as long as none of them are aware that ignoring the law is an option?
That seems to sum it up. lol
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.
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.
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 are lots of laws I don't agree with. The power is with the Jury. Once I make up my mind, I'm set. Enough said.
Color me shocked! Knew about jury nullification. Knew a lawyer couldn’t advocate for it in court. Had no idea you could be arrested outside of a courthouse for it.
It's my understanding that the most frequent use of jury nullification was around prohibition. That "should" in the federal instructions makes that sound much more plausible.
I would argue that jury nullification is the point of juries; otherwise having professional jurors would be better.
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.
A judge can throw out a bad guilty verdict but can't throw out a bad not guilty verdict
If enough jury's refuse to enforce a wrong law the government will desist
@@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.
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.
@@dadsapp My take: Jury nullification helped move the states towards legalization of cannabis during the past 30 years.
I did this as well the last time I was called for jury duty. I wrote it down on the "questioneer." That was the last time I was ever called upon.
You don’t advocate for it but I do and I’m not a lawyer. The power is in the people, “ the peers”
What about jury instructions by the judge? Should a judge be giving any instructions to a jury before deliberation?
I'm surprised more people don't know about jury nullification. I learned about it from TV shows like The Practice and Boston Legal.
I am from a state in which the State Constitution specifically grants the right of jury nullification in both civil and criminal matters. The courts have therefore adjusted the usual instructions to include words to the effect that you are here to do justice. The "do justice" compromise charge was arrived at after a lot of discussion between the legislature and the judiciary. I doubt that any juror has ever read the State Constitution but I have. If I were in a jury pool and was being questioned during voir dire, I would ask to speak with the judge privately out of the earshot of others and tell him and counsel that, based ONLY on the evidence presented at trial, there is at least a possibility that I might exercise my right to nullify.
I was a juror on a case that should have taken a few weeks at most. The Judge allowed the case to drag on for 8 months. It appeared they were trying to fatigue the jurry to its breaking point. The jurry considered holding the judge in contempt. It was for some jurors very traumatic.
It's not everyday that someone references the Magna Carta! Thank You. I Remember that in my youth we drank a very mediocre beer called Magna Carta.
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"?
the moment someone says this bit of TRUE information is dangerous, and you cannot distribute it, they need to be deprived of power.
I watch all of your videos just to find the "C note" ... All seriousness aside, thx for sharing your expertise...
I am a juror coming up in July. I will overturn based on Nullification.
I hope you haven't already decided that. If a defendant has been shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have committed an illegal act, and there are no extenuating circumstances that morally require an acquittal, you really should vote for a guilty verdict. I've been a juror in two trials, and have been prepared to nullify if necessary, but in neither case was either the validity of the law, nor the circumstances of the case, such as to make nullification an issue.
@@markhagerman3072 I will nullify if there isn't a victim. The State doesn't count as a victim.
When you mentioned Laura Kriho my ears pricked up. I live in Colorado, and looking at the current Bill of Rights I see ( Colo. Const. Art. Ii section 10) "... and in all suits and prosecutions for libel, the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact."
To my way of thinking, a grand jury indictment is about as libelous as a document can be. Now allI have to do is remember not to SAY that during voir dire 😂 !
I believe in nullification. Why? Because our Founders did. But I believe that if you use it, you should search your conscience thoroughly before applying it. I find it particularly justifiable for guarding the Constitution. It's a way an individual can guard the Constitution equally as powerfully(well, maybe not quite) as the Supreme Court. For instance, laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment as one example.
Don't be Keith Wood :) Another good video Steve. I've known about jury nullification for many years but never knew it was prosecutable within the legal system, I always thought it was a legitimate thing you could (and maybe should) tell jurors.
What if a "just" verdict isn't a guilty verdict?
The interesting thing is that nobody asks the question as to why jurors should be part of trials. It is just a matter of FOLLOWING THE LAW, and condemning someone for breaking a particular law, well then. . . lawers and judges can do that by themselves. They are the experts on laws! Why the third party needs to be there to be told: "ok he or she broke the law, now please go ahead and convict him or her so we can impose the corresponding punishment." Seems kind of stupid to me.
In essence, you are advocating trial by robots - cold, unthinking exactness to the written letter, without consideration of intent behind the law. (That is among the more common views people can take for the concept of administering law)
I disagree with that view. I believe that every law is created to enforce an idea/intent. I believe our system was *intentionally created* with multiple layers of discretion to allow mercy or lessor penalties for generally well meaning and well behaved people and harsher for blatant & intentional negative behavior with disregard for the people around them.
In support of what I suggest, note that most crimes or misdemeanors have - not a fixed sentence - but a range of sentences the judge can assign. The Judge has discretion built into the system - but is still limited to only his authority part (balance of powers).
The judge not being allowed to rule on guilt is an important balance of power, limiting the harm from 1 person who could (in violation of their oaths of office) decide to start ruling with their own law.
If they were allowed to judge law and guilt/innocence, then you have an instant tyrant waiting to happen: 1 person who can issue warrants, decide their own law, and convict people all at his own discretion.
I am glad we don't live under that (except "preponderance of evidence" for "infractions"...but that's a whole discussion in itself).
I'm glad we live in a society where a police officer *can* decide to issue a warning (if he thinks it is sufficient to change behavior), but *can* also instantly pull the license of someone speeding 120mph past an elementary school (disregarding the high risk of killing someone).
Is that uneven/unfair enforcement of the law?
Sure - but I'd rather it be good than fairy harsh!
You always put that 100 dollar bill in a different location in every video lol
Here in Louisiana the judges NOW say to "listen to the evidence and apply the law AS I GIVE IT TO YOU"... to try & limit nullification.
Just got called for federal jury duty. Seriously considering wearing a T-shirt that has "Ask me about jury nullification" on it.
Joseph Erhardt they will strike you from the jury lol
@@matty1234a1 I was afraid they'd just strike me--with a heavy blunt instrument! :)
Joseph Erhardt they might do that too😂
@@ilikedota5 I kept calling the phone number to check to see if I needed to come to the courthouse, and they never had my name on the list. Also, the rules for jury duty at the federal courthouse specifically prohibited T-shirts, alas. :) Of course, I could have come in wearing a dress--that would've done the trick. :)
I asked for this topic. Thank you for doing a video. Will watch it when I get to work in an hour. 👌👌
Thanks for the suggestion!
In some states (i.e. Georgia), state law says the jury is the arbiter of the facts AND the law. (In most states, the judge is the arbiter of the law and the jury is the arbiter of the facts.) So, in Georgia, the jury can agree with the facts as presented by the prosecutor but believe the law is unjust or being improperly applied and thus return a not-guilty verdict. Now, some judges may not like it and get really pissed if a juror mentions it, but it is the law.
So he was charged and convicted with standing on public ground practicing his first amendment rights.
"True and just verdict..."
I think the word 'and' has heaps of weight here. If a guilty verdict requires it to be both true and just, then you are logically compelled to decide not guilty if it is either untrue or unjust.
Some time ago there was a book published about what jury’s and individuals on jury’s can do but are not made aware of, it was a interesting and eye opening book.
I have jury duty tomorrow morning, thanks for the advice. 😜
While not exactly the same thing, this reminded me of a time when I was on a jury, and the defendant was charged with escape, but was found not guilty because of the lack of the word "attempted", since he wasn't able to make it beyond the officer's reach.
I advocate for JN on the same grounds you say lie detectors are not impermissible in court even if they were 100% correct. My job as a juror is to make a decision and my reasons for doing that are mine and mine alone. If it is because I think the law is wrong, then it is because I think the law is wrong, but if I don't feel the law is wrong then it will not be because I feel the law is wrong. My one and only job is to take in the information given and make a decision based on that information and my own moral judgement on what is right.
I almost always learn something interesting from your videos. Thank you.
Can you do a video on mandatory jury duty? Here in NY, most people will do anything possible to get out of jury duty because the pay is so low and they don't cover travel expenses.
I think the opinion of the Michigan court stating that juries “have the power, but not the right” may simply be due to under our Constitution, individual people have rights, and governments (or government agencies) are delegated powers. In the case of a jury, it is a group convened by the government to exercise a specific power, that is temporarily granted to them by the government.
Am I wrong to believe that Jury nullification was at issue in Crown v. William Penn, 1670, in which a jury returned a non-guilty verdict, but was forced to deliberate for several additional weeks because the judge had expressly ordered them to find Penn guilty?
And am I also wrong in believing that the example of William Penn is why jury trials are a right under the constitution?
There were countless cases of both: juries that were told to convict and then arrested (or maltreated when they failed to do so) and famous jury trials. The notion of a jury goes back to the Magna Carta (at least for being a right) and has been part of the process ever since.
Steve:
A question. *Would* a lawyer advocating jury nullification outside of a court setting (e.g. on a RUclips platform like yours) put that lawyer in any sort or degree of jeopardy?