Jury Nullification Conviction Tossed by MI Supreme Court - Ep. 6.639
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ค. 2024
- The MI Supreme Ct has thrown out the conviction of a man accused of talking about jury nullification with people who were near a courthouse.
www.lehtoslaw.com - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
if everyone is a potential juror, then anything the prosecutor says publicly (to the press) that casts the defendant in a bad light is also jury tampering
The Steve Avery trial was absolute jury tampering by this standard.
Then DAs would never issue press releases till conviction if that was the case.
Joe Chang. Nice catch. But the law is not applied equally to those in power.
You can add the police to an even higher degree which I consider worse than someone standing outside a courthouse explaining a generalized understanding of the law.
When is the last time a lying, cheating prosecutor was punished? It doesn't happen. Prosecutors do what they want. If they get caught, they might lose the case, but that's the extent of their punishment.
Meanwhile, a common citizen tells the truth about the law and goes to jail. There's a reason BLM exists.
In 1670 William Penn, he of Pennsylvania, along with one William Meade, was charged with essentially creating a serious disorder. The jury found them not guilty, a verdict the judge disagreed with and demanded they changed their verdict which they refused to do.
They were locked up until the Lord Chief Justice intervened, pointing out a judge can open the eyes of a jury but not lead them by the nose.
The case established beyond question, the independence of the jury, there is a plaque celebrating the jurors on the wall of the Old Bailey.
I'm glad you filled out the details. I was aware of such a case, but didn't know who was involved. Thank you. I have a feeling this was not the only case from those times, eventually it was ruled that a Judge could not force a jury to reverse its decision.
@@claudgurr431 .
It's known as Bushell's Case.
When Bushell and the others were released, he took out a writ to free Penn and Meade as, although found not guilty, they had been imprisoned for not removing their hats in court.
@@grahvis Did William Penn keep his hat on because he was a Quaker? (Was he?)
Fred
This excites me a lot. I too am an "officer of the court". Jury nullification does not undermine the law. It is an intrinsic part of the law at the top level. Suppressing free speech undermines the law.
How do you feel about the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench"? Isn't it similarly "an intrinsic part of the law at the top level".
@@seneca983 I think perhaps I would reverse the question on you. It is always a tricky thing to distinguish between legislating from the bench and interpreting. For most of our nation's history most crimes and laws aren't actually enacted they were common-law which is to say decisions made by judges and adjusted and tweaked over centuries. So to reverse the question on you how is it exactly that you would propose a judge not make some degree of law from the bench? Whenever a case comes through if the enacted statute does not provide clear guidance on which position wins and which loses and why how do you make a decision? Practice has been to think through and make a rule that would clarify the gap in the rule in whatever way is consistent with the part of the rule that already is clear. I think it is very much a contrast when a judge goes and sets a budget for a government department or lays out a rule for an issue that is not directly before them... So again I put that question to you If you don't like that idea what exactly is the alternative you propose and how would it work in reality?
@@GunFunZS I don't have a good suggestion or anything.
Jury nullification and legislating from the bench seem to me to be similar in the way that they're ways of wielding de facto power in a way that one isn't technically supposed to. At least according to law, jurors and supreme court justices aren'te supposed to behave like that but the law also doesn't functionally prevent them.
I asked this because I've sometimes seen people who like one and not the other and thus pondering the similarity might good even if I can't offer any practical proposals to change things.
I myself don't have a strong opinion though I'm a bit uncomfortable with nullification because in the past it's been used to e.g. acquit whites who've murdered blacks.
@@seneca983 every tool is capable of being used or misused. That doesn't make it good or bad The question is how much range do you give it. or another way of asking the question is is it actually possible to limit that power? Perfect rules being applied by imperfect people tend to get ignored. Nullificationication and judicial discretion allow for choosing not to apply unjust rules or adjusting imperfect or incomplete rules. but every system that you could possibly conceive of ultimately has a person applying the rule. If you limit the power of that person you're only limiting that power by having another person with the ability to check them. So you haven't actually got humanity out of the loop. You've just redistributed the potential for human error or malice to do good or harm. In our present system the jury acts as a check on the judge and prosecutors and cops. And to a certain degree the judge also acts as a check on the jury. arduous Prudence has come to the conclusion that these sole valid purpose of the jury is to determine factual matters and to allow all legal reasoning to reside with the judge. I see nothing in the text of the Constitution that says that is what was intended. It could well be that they intended for the jury to interpret both law and facts. though for the most part I agree with the way we have distributed those responsibilities. In general I expect of the judges to do a much better job of applying law to the facts. This is also part of the difference between a bright line rule with factors and a rule with multiple considerations in some kind of a balancing test. Really those aren't rules so much is just saying let the judge use his opinion and discretion to decide and he can justify his decision retroactively.
@@GunFunZS There is definitely a line to be drawn somewhere. For example, how the Supreme Court came up with qualified immunity. If we the people wanted a law that said you can't sue the police when they destroy your house, steal your property, or otherwise violate your rights, we would have elected legislators to write that law. But we didn't.
As a matter of fact, laws that we have passed that grant rights or rights written into the Consitution or its amendments seem to go the other way, in favor of protecting citizens' rights from government actors. Instead, the Supreme Court went completely contrary to the spirit of citizens having rights and created this pseudo-law that states you cannot sue the police.
That, to me, is unambiguously legislating from the bench.
Jury nullification is the reason the right to a jury trial was written into the constitution in the first place. Before the revolution, American juries refused to convict local smugglers of evading British taxes. Crown prosecutors used a legal maneuver available at the time to force these cases to have bench trials. As a result, one of the complaints Jefferson wrote into the Declaration of Independence was that the crown was denying colonials their right to a jury and later made sure our constitution prevented this.
Jury nullification as a check on government power is really the only benefit to having them. Otherwise, cases would be decided more accurately by an experienced judge with legal training.
I love it when a defendant's case is so strong they decide to have a bench trial. I think some of the officers in the Freddie Grey incident went with a bench trial.
Or a computer.
@@shanepowers7566 th-cam.com/video/qrpmWfWbdXI/w-d-xo.html
The dissenting Judge has demonstrated a significant flaw in his ability to reason and needs to be removed from the bench.
How much do you want to bet he is/was a Republican?
@Pol Pot 2024 RINO, Republican in name only.
As I was reminded a couple of times while being prosecuted, we have a legal system; not a justice system. Jury nullification may be the last chance a defendant has against being unjustly prosecuted. As someone else mentioned here, the prosecution has a lot of resources and most people do not. Someone else pointed out that cops lie under oath constantly.
In my case a prosecutor talked to the deputies involved in my case, then walked up to my attorney and said, "This guy never should have been charged, and I'm not dropping the charges." At that point I lost faith in the system and switched sides. I now always suspect the police and prosecutors are lying until proven otherwise. Lawyers are allowed to lie in court and on documents. Police are allowed to lie during an investigation.
They are lying sacks of shit.
I was on a jury for a federal drug case. After finding two people guilty and one not guilty some of us were interviewed by the prosecutor and the defense attorneys. I questioned why a piece of evidence wasn't presented and was immediately accused of doing my own investigation. I then reminded both of them the evidence in question was given to us in the jury room and wondered why they didn't do their job. All three went to prison on other charges.
I used to argue with the Judges & Prosecutors that Jury Nullification was indeed intended by the Founding Fathers to be an option. If a Jury of your peers was not intended to serve as a bulwark to prevent prosecutions going off the rails then all trials could simply be Bench trials in front of a Judge.
You can come up with other reasons for juries besides nullification. Jury nullification has been used for (arguably) good purposes but also for pretty deplorable ones. E.g. in the past it was common to acquit whites who had murdered blacks basically because the all-white jury didn't see a problem with that.
@@seneca983 It wasn't necessarily because most people in the South approved of the abuse and murder of Blacks and Colored people. If the Whites on the jury were to convict a White Person for harming a Black and/or Colored Person they had to worry that if their decision was revealed to the community, racist elements especially the Klan would retaliate against them or their family members. Also how is jury nullification any worse than prosecuturial discretion?
I agree, see what I said about local Juries.
@@ralphbentley5499 Keep in mind the KKK only took off after the War Between the States. Before that time it was legal to abuse black people because they were property.
Some communities looked down upon this kind of behavior and put limits on it.
@@ralphbentley5499 Thanks for the info.
Prosecutorial discretion may be also bad for similar reasons. It feels a bit different (which doesn't necessarily mean less bad) in the sense that prosecutors are explicitly given discretion which they then use, for better or for worse. Jurors oath, on the other hand, seems to fairly explicitly forbid nullification but in practice, they can still do with nigh impunity anyway (for better or for worse).
*Sounds like two of those 'Supreme' Court justices aren't fit for the job.*
"The jury did something they're not supposed to do."
As far as I'm concerned, unless a crime was committed during deliberation, there is no such thing. I don't care if the jury goes back there and writes a musical based on the case only to find the plot doesn't make sense, so they declare a "not guilty" verdict. Juries are the last defense against unjust or tyrannical application of the law, and they can do whatever they think is right. You can argue that juries have dispensed injustice -- and I'd agree with you -- but it takes a whole lot of applying injustice before a jury gets its say.
The best case for jury nullification: northern juries refusing to convict runaway slaves and those who sheltered them
The best case against jury nullification: southern juries refusing to convict people for lynching African Americans
Only thing is be careful how you answer the attorneys during jury selection. If you lie you can be convicted for perjury and if you seem to knowledgeable or opinionated then you won't be selected and cannot help anyone.
@@randomxnp be careful, there is 1 very specific way you can be convicted for exercising your jury nullification power. If you lie during jury selection you can be convicted of perjury, but if you seem too knowledgeable or opinionated then you will not be selected and cannot help anyone.
The question to be ready for, "do you have any beliefs that will affect your ability to rule on this case impartially?" Of course the prosecutor (and defendant's attorney) will word this question better and may ask follow-ups. They cannot and will not ask you if you know about jury nullification, but they will ask you questions that indirectly check.
@@lilacdoe7945 Yep. I'll probably never get picked for a jury for anything but a cut-and-dried case, as I'm a software engineer with a Master's degree. Prosecutors don't like highly analytical people on their juries, as it's much easier to appeal to emotions unless the evidence is undeniable and overwhelming -- in which case they can probably just get a plea deal.
@@randomxnp I read more and after losing her case, Kriho won in appeals for exactly that. Still, how much money do you think she spent just for doing the right thing.
If they find the defendant Not Guilty, then I agree. The problem is when they step outside of the bounds and it results in a Guilty verdict.
Why did it have to go to the Michigan Supreme Court for someone to actually know the Law?
right?! I wonder this when legislators write obviously unconstitutional laws all the time!
B/c shut up and fill the prisons. Also, my career needs to look awesome.
Judges should be charged with jury tampering for NOT informing the jury of their RIGHT to nullify!
Nullification isn't a right, it's a way of using the rights that jurors are given. It's also an abuse of power. Jury trials are unpredictable even without such abuses of power. The lawyers aren't going to know if it's a matter of not meeting the burden of proof or if the jury just decided that they didn't like the law. It also is on a case by case basis and if juries start striking down the best laws to set precedence with, then it can take a long time for reform to occur.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade
Well a lot of laws are wrong, and need reformed.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Abuse of Power? Setting someone free? That's quite an expansive view of that concept.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade It absolutely is a right.
Rights are not given. Simple concept.
When I was called for jury duty I asked the judge if he was going to explain to the jury about "Jury Nullification". I was immediately dismissed LOL!!
Letting them know you're aware of it is pretty much instant dismissal 100% of the time.
Fam you should have hid that knowledge, without an informed juror then he might have been subject to bad laws.
I love the concept of a jury because sometimes what the law says and what needs to be done are two different things. Our founders were brilliant.
Yes, our founders were brilliant. But we can't credit them with the concept of juries or jury nullification. That comes from the system of Common Law we inherited from the English and left unchanged.
@@chuckwingo11 you are correct however they were smart enough to Incorporate it into our system of laws also.
Law and justice are not always the same thing. Jury nullification exists to make sure justice is done.
@@kennethmwitalis2965 I forget who it was who said this is a courtroom of law, not justice. Jury nullification is a check to help make sure the law serves justice, not the other way around.
I totally agree with you that the founding fathers were great, did you know that the concept of jury nullification goes back to before the start of the United States. Something we Americans brought forward from English Common Law.
2015 - so 5 years ago. It took five long years and getting a state supreme court to hear what seems like is on its face broad-side-of-a-barn level protected 1A - and they came up with a /technicality/. The process is the punishment. This kind of insanity pushes me more libertarian, further eroding precious little remaining trust in our justice system.
Second, we’ve seen SCOTUS research and cite foreign law in the last couple of decades to justify some of their findings. As you pointed out - Michigan is not Maine, just as America is not Australia. One is left with the sense that justice isn’t blind, but rather like Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case, has its own desired outcome with the ends justifying any means to reach its predetermined conclusion.
A juries right to nullify a bad law or improper application of any law should be required as part of the jury instructions. Jury nullification is the last line of defense against a tyrannical government.
People should be able to sue for free for wrongful arrest.
Police departments would start to go broke within a week.
It happens. Framed as a civil rights violation.
Prosecutors have their thumbs on the scales and hate having their unfair advantages challenged.
Years ago I was on a jury where a young woman was accused of a crime. After a number of hours of deliberation, the jury foreman blurted out: "Well I think she probably did it, so I am going to vote guilty". I politely explained to him that "probably did it" is not belief beyond a reasonable doubt. At that point, he dug in and doubled down. It appeared to me that it was now a matter of ego for him and no amount of reasoning was going to change his mind. It ended up a hung jury. After the trial was over, the jurors were asked if they would be willing to answer some questions posed by the attorneys. That seemed very odd to me but all the jurors agreed. Eventually, I related that at least one of the jurors voted guilty because they believe she "probably" did it. The look on the attorneys faces was incredulous. Juries are fallible. People bring with them all their biases and preconceptions. I am all for increased preparation and education of the rights and responsibilities for all jurors.
I was on a jury. The state presented no direct evidence of guilt. When the deliberations started, the other 11 jurors wanted to convict anyway, with one of them saying, "Sometimes no evidence is proof enough." We reviewed the evidence including a wiretap where the State's star witness claimed the defendant was innocent. Finally, I got them to acquit.
It scares me how bloodthirsty "twelve good men and true" are. If I ever go on trial, I want a bench trial.
It's far too depressing that there is no recourse for this guy being quite obviously falsely put in jail.
2 out of 7 judges literally too stupid to identify a juror, wow
"If you run in front of a car, you'll get tired. If you run behind a car, you'll get exhausted..."
🤣🤣🤣🤣👌
When there are laws on the books that suppress the Truth, it's never a good idea.
Hey, if the " jury" is in fact sitting in judgement, then they have a right to ANY decision, if not, then who NEEDS a jury,or judge.?
Jury nullification is why so few people were convicted during the prohibition years.
Even if sworn he was merely educating them, it should be legal.
Thank you Steve. Interesting topic! Great for discussion.
Am I insane to think jury nullification is one of the main points of having a jury system?
(With a Russian Accent) "In Soviet Russia, we have saying. In both US and USSR, we have *free speech* just in America, you still free after you say it" --Garry Kasparov archives
There were no ads while I watched. Jury re-enactment reminds me of the Great movie 12 Angry Men. The original. The TV re make wasn’t bad the original better.
Kevin Karcher There is also a Russian version. "12" A film by Nikita Mikhalkov. A good demonstration of the different biases in different countries.
I dont know... I think all the states that start with "M" have the same laws. I saw it on the internet so it must be true.
The assumption that jurors understand the law is exactly where the story ends on whether they follow it. Thank you for taking your time to bring the truth forward in a manner that promotes justice in an imperfect system...of justice. :)
I was dismissed as a juror because I stated I knew jury nullification.
The real irony would have been the jury in his trial nullifying the charge against him.
I am thinking that the court itself should be giving this information to every juror. Not doing so seems dishonest and borderline criminal.
TH-cam is getting obnoxious with these ads that play in the middle of videos.
I agree. Watching YT on my mobile is pretty much intolerable. Fortunate for desktop browsers there is a solution:
AdBlocker for TH-cam™
Removes all annoying Ads and banners from TH-cam.
Paige B I have that on my laptop but I was referring to my phone.
@@ateamfan42 there is on a mobile too, but its not as easy to do
Don't use the app, and get the AdBlock browser to watch TH-cam. Soooo much better.
I find it interesting that a jury is suppose to have secret deliberations, but as of late, juries are seen on television explaining themselves. So odd people feel it necessary to explain themselves after the fact. Is this more prevalent since Simpson fiasco?
Got a question, Steve. If you can talk about the evidence regarding case. Why, is reenactment of the crime, not allowed. As always, it's a pleasure to watch your show.
I served on a jury that was judge nullified. (he thru out our considered verdict). I will never serve on another jury without making it known how displeased I was, and how much in favor of jury nullification I am.
Steve needs some space on a radio show, this man has the gift of gab.
Explains his choice of career very well
Perhaps national news expert
lexington it was late night, he said he was the last one there before they turned off the airwaves
He's been there, done that, and now he's back at it in the current popular medium!
Steve gets to work for himself doing TH-cam, instead of being in the current radio industry which is much less comfy.
I played this video twice. I didn't see any ads running during the video either time. I don't subscribe to TH-cam premium -YMMV
Zero ads. And thanks for joke at the end. Excellent.
Fair winds and following seas to all.
You should get portraits of those two judges and their... Brave stance that this man should be imprisoned because he told the truth to members of the broad public near a courthouse.
Jury nullification has been an important tool in fighting bad laws and unjust conviction
Why don't courts answer or throw out unconstitutional laws? Why do they only look at the question in front of them?
[John Peter] Zenger case, in which American patriots were charged with sedition against the British crown, and jurors nullified in those cases
This is why we have amateur juries, we have an adversarial system, the prosecutor and defense are both there to win, the judge is there to determine matters of law. The professionals are all part of the system, and are there to uphold the system. Juries have the ability to just say "this is stupid" or "this is just wrong" when the system breaks down, is being misused, etc.
I see the judges that voted against this case are the ones who gave you the two thumbs down
And how much did it cost this poor guy in legal fees and court costs to get justice? The whole system is corrupt.
Very good explanation.
TV show Law and Order has referenced Jury Nullification a few times through the years.
A remedy for jury nullification is covered by a judge overturning a jury's decision. Was surprised that Steve didn't touch on that, but I guess that's potentially a lawyer's worst nightmare.
Actually, JNOVs can only be done in criminal cases with guilty verdicts. A "Not Guilty" verdict cannot be overruled in any form by a judge in a criminal case.
I told the judge during voir dire I would refuse to convict a man of carrying a handgun without a license in protest to New Jersey’s crazy gun laws. He was charged with murder and I said I was open to conviction on the murder charge if the state could prove its case. I was dismissed. If I had kept my plan to myself and was selected and after the trial I said publicly I didn’t convict on the one charge in protest could I face any punishment?
If distributing pamphlets outside the courthouse was (according to the DA & judge) "jury tampering", then shouldn't every DA, police officer, and reporter who has ever ordered/allowed/participated in/reported on a "Perp Walk" then equally guilty of "jury tampering"??? Gonna need a bunch more jail cells...
I once served on a jury in Sacramento, CA. After the criminal trial, we were asked if anyone was willing to give any feedback; never once were we asked to explain our verdict.
Actually its both. I've been on a lot of juries, and the instructions from the judge include that the jury must judge the case only on the facts heard as testimony during the trial, and also the jury is given a copy of all the applicable laws that pertain to the charges.
Had about four ads playing. I think cgpgrey had a video on jury nullification. Very interesting stuff
The two judges that voted against should be voted out ! It shows they're in it for the institution and not the people !
hahahah, that was a briliant one, Canadian Robot Lady!!!!!!!!!
OH, BTW, great show Steve!!!
Jury nullification exists because no law is perfect. Each cases deserves to be judged solely on the merits of the specific circumstances under which it occurred. Sometimes a person did the right thing at the right time, even though strictly according to the law what the person did was illegal, not accounting for such a situation. This gives the jurors the authority to declare no wrong even though the strict letter of the law says the action was illegal. This is how our justice system is setup, to account for the fact laws are imperfect. Juries are good things if used correctly, and if people took the responsibility seriously.
The fastest way to get excused from jury duty is to say "jury nullification." Just being aware of the concept is enough for the DA to get rid of you.
There's an old story of a poor man accused from stealing a pig from a rich farmer. He gets up on the stand and says "I had to steal the pig, my family is starving". The jury deliberates, comes back and says "We find the defendant innocent, providing he returns the pig." The judge told them they couldn't do that, they could only rule innocent or guilty. The jury went back, deliberated, came back and said "We find defendant innocent, he can keep the pig"
There might be multiple versions of this story since I remember another commenter mention a story just like that one on this channel, but instead it was a sheep from a landowner everybody hated.
@@Lady-V I first heard the story sixty years ago, and it was old then. I'm sure there are a lot of versions. It's one of those universal truths that may not be factually true.
@@donaldfrapwell4116 Yep that sounds about right. It's also true that people's memory isn't that great so little details get mixed up all the time. Nothing against you of course.
There was a Judge in NH 12-15 years ago that from time to time would explain jury nullification to the jurors on his own. My guess is when it was laws he disagreed with.
I love the words of Wisdom at the end.
Keith, it is mediocre attorneys that write these idiotic laws. Giving the corrupt judicial system a bloody nose is sweet Justice. Thank you for your courage, brother.
Oh my, how would they deal with me. I remember 'civics' in 8th grade and a half day devoted to the concept of jury nullification (both types).
I'm (unfortunately?) old enough to have had Civics also, but no mention of Nullification. Kudos to your teacher, or whoever was responsible, for imparting that important, patriotic information.
I did not see any ads in the video.. only after..
This has been well established since the King locked up juries in the Tower of London. The jury under accepted U.S Law and backed up by the Supreme Court that the Jury has the obligation to decide the Justiciability of the Law and then if they decide the law is just- then they determine guilt or innocent under the Law. There where no convictions under Prohibition because Juries didn't like the law. Judges try and fix the juries by telling them that they are only to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. They omit the duty of the jury to decide the justiciability portion. The Jury is the last bastion to preserve justice when you have an out of control legislature, courts and executive branches of government
Judges want to be the only one's that are allowed to Tamper with a Jury.
Many years ago I was a juror panelist in Paw Paw. The courthouse was undergoing renovations, and posted on the OSHA board, something common to every construction site, was a bright orange paper about jury nullification. I was clueless about anything legal and I thought it was interesting. During panel introductions I mentioned the paper and jury nullification to the judge. Needles to say, he was not happy.
I was instantly in trouble. The clerk was on the spot and a couple of people in the pool, one an attorney, snickered.
The paper was faded so it had been posted a few weeks and I think the judge figured that out.
It was gone the next day.
I'm pretty sure my attorney won't discuss jury nullification during his closing arguments. But suppose I fire him just before then, conduct closing argument myself, and attempt to tell the jury about jury nullification. Will the judge shut me down? Can the judge do that without giving significant grounds for a retrial.
I always wondered about the trial of Jack Kevorkian (the one in which he was convicted). I seem to remember he wasn't even allowed to present evidence of the suffering of the patient. Had he done so, I imaging nullification could have become an issue.
I was wondering what ever became of this.
I had always abhorred the idea of jury duty. But then I heard a legal podcast that discussed jury nullification. Brilliant! I did a ton of research and then, of course, was called to jury duty. During the questioning of potential jurors, the defending lawyer asked if anyone in the room had a problem with making a decision based on reasonable doubt and common sense. I raised my hand and said that I did not believe in "reasonable" doubt or, for the matter, common sense. When asked to give more details about my opinion, I explained that "common sense" had previously indicated that the entire solar system revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat and that certain kinds of human beings could, without question, be enslaved, etc. I said that "common sense" is something that changes over time and varies based on the individual and context at any given moment. I further explained that, in a court of law, where the outcomes impact human lives, often to a severe extent, that, in my mind, there is no room for "reasonable doubt". I said that there is doubt or there is no doubt, and that the facts as presented to me must allow me to make a decision based on that viewpoint. I will not convict someone of a crime because I have some doubt but that it is not 100% doubt. The judge then asked me, after the facts were presented to me, and he had explained the law, would I be able to set aside my opinions and beliefs and apply the law, as he explained it, to the facts as presented to me. I said no, that if I did not believe in the relevant laws as presented to me I would not base my decision upon them. He immediately had me escorted from the court room and informed the juror manager that I was not permitted to participate in any other cases on the docket for that day.
Sounds about right.
Anyone who would vote Not guilty because they have an unreasonable doubt that we are living in the matrix, (as you would, because you don’t believe in the standard of reasonable doubt) should never serve on a jury.
I read up on jury nullification years ago (someone suggested mentioning it was a way to avoid serving on a jury) and I remember that mentioning it inside a courtroom has been know to have adverse consequences as think it was judges do not like it.
Many judges consider it illegal.To them, it is showing contempt for the court.
You aren't taught in law school that the jury judges the law and the facts
I have personally seen a case that delt with jury nullification in action. About 25 years ago when I was just about to turn into a teenager a friend of mine was In appropriately taken advantage of by a guy down the street. when her father found out the gentlemen needed what we shall call after life care.. When it went to trial he was found not guilty of all charges, The charges ranged from simple battery, and tresspassing through manslaughter up to 2nd degree murder.. one of the jurors later reported they would have done the same thing if it was their child.
mich. constitution says the jury decides guilt or innocence, and the law itself,a jury can decide against the letter of the law,
I'm in California and just recently got an OFFICIAL JURY SUMMONS in the mail and yes it was in all capitals like I typed. I haven't been on a jury in years and the last time I was it was a hung jury.
Steve I wished you was licensed in NC
Super weak logic on the dissenter's part. As Steve mentioned, every citizen would be a juror under their definition, and free speech would be under serious threat. Scary how supreme court justices sometimes don't understand such simple things.
I had a judge ask me why we gave the verdict we did. So it does happen.
The question came in the hall after we were dismissed. He looked a little sheepish, so I think he knew he wasn't supposed to be asking.
It wouldn’t matter if the people he gave pamphlets to were empaneled as jurors.
If truthfully informing someone - sworn juror or not - of the facts of the law is tampering with a jury, then even a judge’s instructions to the jury about the law or telling them not to experiment would be tampering. Judges are not immune to prosecution under that law, otherwise a judge could order a jury to find as the judge directs or be jailed for disobeying!
That ignores, of course, that the steps of a government building and the public street outside are traditional public forums. The protections for freedom of speech are at their strongest there of all possible places.
If you run in front of a car you'll get tired. But if you run behind a car you'll get exhausted!
LOL :) Loved it.
Yikes ! So basically a jury can do anything they want and as long as everybody keeps their mouth shut...
What about when a judge throws out jury verdict?
Was it a guilty or not guilty verdict? Throwing out a Not Guilty verdict would introduce double jeopardy.
So now, elsewhere in the country, there are 2 diametrically opposed court cases about the definition of a juror? It looks like this will end up going to the US Supreme Court eventually to decide which is the legal definition of a juror.
Anybody that wants to get out of jury duty just has to respond to any question with a big smile on their face and say two words:
"Jury nullification." Followed by an evil laugh 😈 muah hahaha!
"... but if you run behind a car, you'll get exhausted."
Not my car. It doesn't have an exhaust. 😁
C-note, leaning on the green cow bell. Hey Steve, San Antonio says hi.
1st. 🥇
Jury Nullification is not only your right but your obligation to judge not only the case but the law itself.
Ok...How about this...since we are invoking laws from another state, Mr Justice David Viviano...why not from another country and say "this act is illegal is such and such country, so we find you guilty!"???
The case still missed the mark. The charge was "tampering". Explaining Jury Nullification or responsibilities should NOT be considered. Bribery, terroristic threats are tampering.
Am I really just missing the boat here?
When I read the title (before watching the video), I thought that story was going to be about a judge throwing out a juries' verdict because they nullified the case. Would that even be legal? If there was a case absolutely cut & dried (ex: they had video evidence, the suspect was caught red handed by the police, and the suspect admitted in court they did what they were charged with), yet the jury still finds the defendant not guilty, could the judge overturn the jury? I don't think that would be possible, but is it?
I don't think it's possible to overturn a not guilty verdict due to double jeopardy, but convictions can and do get overturned by appeals courts and supreme courts. I doubt the reason would specifically be jury nullification, but that the lower court (and by extension the jury) made a mistake.
Out of State law may not be binding but may be cited as persuasive and argued in court quite appropriately. The fact that the prosecution argued that "juror" should be interpreted as "potential juror" and applied to everyone who might qualify as a juror is absurd on its face and should not have survived a demurrer or motion to dismiss. Any judge in the lower court who would order $150,000 bail and entertain the prosecution theory in this case should be the one(s) spending weekends in the county jail.
I was involved in a case where the Judge threw out the jury’s conviction and said the jury did not understand the case. He overode the jury. Boston, MA.
If a jury can't nullify then who needs a judge or jury. Just charge and call them guilty.
Prosecutor and judge in his case should be disbarred.
This is simply a story I heard but I wonder how true it is. A farmer is charged with theft of a neighbor's cow. The farmer in question is extremely poor but well liked by the public while the victim is more of an opportunist that will do anything to take what he believes he is due. During deliberations, the jury asked if charges could be dropped if the defendant returned the cow. Judge says no. Minutes later, the jury comes back with a "Not guilty and the farmer can keep the cow" ruling.
I think that I heard about this case.
The astounding part was that this guy showed up to give this speech for DECADES.
Why let him do it at the courthouse for decades if it was somehow illegal?
Steve I remember you mentioning that you didn't put ads in the running of your video's, just at the opening and end but this video had 4 ads placed through out it's entirety.
I am in the process of fixing that. I have them turned off now but they weren't turned off on this particular video for some reason.