Yeah, that's what people who can *afford* a judge do! The other 99% who go through a court are poor (and that's no accident!). So they provide the guilty verdicts, that shows to everybody how the system is good and just. Because it puts poor people in jail.
It’s possible, say if the jury is biased or ……. not the best, Jurors are just random people picked, a judge has spent years studying law and probably knows better than the Jury if the verdict or the punishment is just.
@@generaltom6850 jury selection ends up making the jury a middle ground, it's not actually completely random, if the lawyers on both sides are good then they get rid of the super biased people...
Much steeper. In some states there are limitation, caps as low as four or five digits, but they dont tell the jury about those caps, and juries awards millions, only for the state law to be invoked, slashing the reward to a tenth or less. In states without these caps, judges look to those other state laws for guidance when issuing remitturs. This perversion of justice is a travesty.
What's more likely? All 12 jurors, who were selected by both prosecuting and defense teams of lawyers, collectively coming to the same decision about the case, are somehow biased in their decision; or the single judge who thinks differently than those 12 people?
@@guus19900not smart enough or just willing to? They basically replace my wage for jury duty so why not go? I don’t get why people who can try to get out of it. If I couldn’t due to childcare or work sure. But if I can make it work I’m going. I know I can bring something to the table and not doing so would be against my own moral code. basically all it is, is, if you can help, do it. Short but all encompassing
@@Marynicole830 you're lucky then. Some states pay as little as $5 a day. Most people in the middle class and below can't afford to miss a single day of work much less multiple days if the case drags out.
The judge cannot do that, what he describes is a bit more complicated than a brief TH-cam short can accurately capture. Judges are only able to throw out jury verdicts under certain circumstances via a highly deferential standard of review. Remittitur is more common, but still relatively rare.
It also means the Judges have discretion on what is considered a "reasonable" person. So they can rule something unreasonable even if the majority of people fall into that category.
Trial by jury, until a judge decides you're not entitled to that right. Judges are a distinct problem, and every one needs to be accountable to the people via recall, all the way to SCOTUS
@@freebornjames6142 what happened to the whole law and order thing? I thought he supported the Justice system, why is he now a convicted felon with several other pending charges? What's going on 🤣
I would assume it’s the same reason a judge is able to overturn a guilty verdict if they believe something went wrong with the jury, but cannot overturn an innocent verdict.
This actually happened to me in a criminal trial. The judge blocked evidence in the discovery process and so I was found guilty. But in the sentencing phase I was able to tell the story as it happened and I was sentenced to 0 years, 0 dollars, 0 restitution. He overturned that and gave me 3 years of probation. 2.5 years later that same judge revokes my probation for a crime I was only accused of. I was found innocent of that crime because it was so obvious the cops were lying and making stuff up. He refused the entrapment defense even though there was an extreme amount of evidence to prove entrapment. So the jury basically told the judge to go fuck himself and came back with an innocent verdict in less than 7 minutes.
Besides the existence of lobbyists, who are worse, expensive campaign spending is a blight on American politics. Sadly money can swing votes if you spend it the right way. There ought to be strict limits. Give each candidate 5 minutes of TV time, maybe once a week, and that's paid for by the government, not the candidate. Then after that, strict spending limits. Just to reduce the black hole of corruption that's otherwise created. The UK has spending limits on political campaigns, and they're taken seriously. Parties above a certain size also get to make a "Party Political Broadcast" for a few minutes, free to them, on TV to explain themselves. It's not a perfect system cos voters are dumbasses, but it removes a lot of potential for corruption. Over here, corruption is decided at school, your old school chums all "help" each other out in later life. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. I'm talking about very expensive private schools, of course.
I was taught a long time ago that the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer is, that the good lawyer knows the law extremely well, but the great lawyer knows the judge personally extremely well!
One thing that’s seems to be forgotten I t he context is a judge can only overturn a guilt verdict in a criminal case. They cannot find you guilty after you were acquitted
@@woopsserg As long as the verdict is legal to apply, that shouldn't matter. If a normal person would find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you should probably be found guilty.
Oh my God you are telling us the judges are compromised and tainted and they will favor the defendant insurance company. 😢 That makes me wonder how much money insurance companies pay judges?
Don’t forget judges decide if they’re too biased to sit as judge for the trial for themselves. Judge we think you’re biased! Judge: hmmmmm I’ve investigated my own bias and find no guilt. I stay.
FYI: this lawyer gets a massive cut of any money awarded by a court. He's not exactly the most unbiased person to say that the amount of money awarded should be higher when he's getting 30-50% of the money. If you haven't found any example of an excessive verdict then you've not been paying attention.
@@Treblaine The lawyer getting a cut of the winnings is a good thing. It puts their interests directly in line with the interests of their client while allowing clients to not have to pay them unless they win. It's literally a win-win for both parties, especially in a system where it would basically be impossible for the average person to pay for a lawyer otherwise.
Depends on the damages because there are laws in many states that restrict the amount you can be awarded. It's also important to note that a Judge can only change a guilty verdict, not an innocent one.
The reason why we have a jury is because it is hard to convince 12 people of the exact same thing. Pwople don't realized that 12 people are 12 different interpretation of the event ar hand. Getting them to agree shouldn't even be possible. It hard to even bribe that many people. I agree there should be someone willing to look at verdicts to decide if the pay off if fair or not, but it shouldn't be one person, nor should they be connected to the case
i hear this then i look to all those judgements involving truck drivers (where video proves trucker didnt cause the accident) but the person/family get 10+ mil payout because "driver inexperience/going fast" even though if the other person stayed in their lane nobody would have gotten hurt...
I’m confused. Are you talking about a criminal or civil court case? Where I live, and in much of Europe, you cannot be found ‘guilty’ during civil proceedings, just liable. Is it not the same in the US?
I believe he's talking about both, as judges can overturn a guilty verdict in a criminal trial in some cases. But no, "guilty" is not a standard verdict in a civil case, but then again, many civil cases don't see a jury.
Little do we know, but this is a passcode given to Mike that reveals the code to a secret bunker built by the Illuminati.(he is a top secret CIA agent) Yeah, ngl it does look quite sharp; “Calmly blued”.
In America, our original legal framework was largely based on English common law. In all of thier history, only one king is referred to as "the great". Among other things Alfred was known to hang judges. Think about that.
I know one example of a judge overturning a jury's guilty verdict by means of a JOA. The jury found her guilty of DUI, but it turns out that the officer never actually measured her BAC, but checked the box on the report saying that he did. The woman also had an outstanding case for driving with license suspended, but her license was only suspended because of the false statement. After the prosecutor refused to drop the case, or take up the officer for perjury, the judge was furious and granted the defendant's motion for JOA.
@@roninkraut6873 Calling our current legal system a "justice" system is like calling a cardboard gruel restaurant "The Flavor Diner". You could find justice/flavor, but you have to be able to afford to bring your own lawyer/maple syrup.
Thx Mike. I want to add-- Remititur by a judge is allowed in all 50 states when a judge believes the jury's verdict is exorbitant. The Plaintiff, aka the victim, can either accept the judges Remititur award or request a new Civil trial ( because there's no such thing as Double Jeopardy in Civil cases). An is allowed in specific states--when a judge believes the jury's award to the Plaintiff isn't sufficient, so he/she awards an additional 'Punitive' amount for Pain & Suffering and/or property damages. What part of US federal law is this under? Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure. "Based on the Remititur Law". Hmm, who votes to dissolve that "Law"?
I've only known so many judges, but I can say with utmost confidence that, good and bad, I have NEVER known a judge who ACTUALLY had a good idea of what an average reasonable person would think. They are wildly out of touch, immersed in a world of legal whatnottery completely divorced from normal experience, and they can't seem to recognize that.
Which is entirely correct. The average person isn't going to earn 10 million dollars in their entire life. Verdicts of tens or hundreds of millions outside of literal gigantic corporate fraud cases is moronic and insanity and judges should write it down more often.
@elefecto4945 yes they are and they can be swayed as well but if they go off of their whelms they can be held to account by law. A jury can not be sued or disbarred for voting with their emotions. I Judge is held to a higher standard.
Judge is a human, however the judge usually has seen it all and is not that easily swayed by emotions. There are shit judges that act on a whim but that's another problem. Compare it with surgeon for example, most of the people would puke while looking on cut open human flesh but surgeons just do their job emotionless.
True. Most people have no idea that the jury's verdict is only a SUGGESTION for the judge. The judge is the JUDGE for a reason. They can change or even completely overrule the jury's recommendation.
Is there any legal recourse to overrule the judge's Remittance? Like a jury awards five million dollars to cover round the clock nurse care for the rest of a person's life- but the judge drops that figure down to just half a million, which wouldn't pay for hardly anything. Can you do anything? Go to the court above him?
The law is written to limit liability to save money for insurance companies, who than take a small percentage of the savings to hire lobbyists to write laws for legislative bodies to pass for donations to their campaign.
To your point exactly, My wife and I had a jury trial for a lawsuit against a wedding venue over $9000 paid for a wedding in 2020 that didn’t happen due to Covid restrictions. The jury found that they had breached their contract and awarded us $0. Our attorney asked for a judgement not withstanding the verdict and the judge said don’t bother filing it.
A judge really should not be allowed to tell the jury they are wrong and rule differently. If there really is a belief they are wrong it should just become a new trial with a new jury. A judge should not hold that much power.
Isn't there an underlying principle that a judge can't go harder than the jury, only softer? Otherwise judges could disregard a jury's not guilty verdict, which I think is never allowed.
How is it against the Constitution? Like it's fine to say that but the judicial powers do grant that ability to judges and allows states to make the rules for their common law as well so neither is it unconstitutional in federal or state proceedings by the Constitution. Now you could say you should think it should be unconstitutional but that's a different thing than saying that it is.
I think it's the opposite, he filed for chapter 11 but they are trying to switch it to chapter 7 liquidation. Alex Jones deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life. Even if they take all his money, he has made his family and friends millionaires, he can just live like a millionaire with other people footing the bill for him. And he is still making more money for them while pretending he can't pay his debts (which are owed to himself and his parents)
While I don't like what Alex Jones did regarding Sandy Hook, I think the penalty was extreme. Did the parents really suffer that much financial harm to justify the penalty. It shouldn't be about hurt feelings, but actual damages.
That seems kinda dumb. Should it not be that the Jury Decides Guilty or Not, while the Judge decides how bad the punishment is? There can be guidelines maybe, but I don't think a Jury should be deciding how much, just if Guilty or not.
Honestly, the "12 random dudes" system is probably the most fair you could get without some way of measuring truth flawlessly without human input. That would be magic, though, so we stick with the 12 dudes. The fact that a judge can override the 12 dudes in a system that says you're entitled to a trail with those 12 dudes deciding the outcome is the really messed up thing.
@@impishlyit9780Yes I would rather trust 12 people who are also like 99% of us rather 1 dude who is in the group of top 1%. It's more fair for 99% of people.
Alex Jones could 100% appeal his lawsuit because the jury was 100% tampered with with people who hated his guts and are either on video or on social media seen bashing him. It is this that makes me side with Alex Jones. I never truly like the guy but doesn't mean I'm going to let bulshit happen to somebody I don't like and wait for it to happen to me
"Wonder why that is?" A judge tempering an overzealous jury awarding money that isn't theirs makes sense. The judge deciding unilaterally that a jury of peers didn't punish a defendant enough doesn't. It's scary if you genuinely don't understand that.
Both make sense little bro and both don’t happen only one and that’s cause judges are payed off (lobbied)by the companies cause they don’t wanna pay as much as they should
“A judge deciding that a prosecutor was not compensated fairly and needs more to account for the damages suffered makes sense but unilaterally deciding that the jury awarded too much money doesn’t” Listen, you can flip it either way. It doesn’t make sense for the judge to overrule any jury because the point of the jury was to make that decision INSTEAD of a judge making that decision. The amount of money awarded to the prosecutor isn’t meant to be a punishment, it’s meant to be reparations for their wrongs. It’s not teaching the defendant, it’s compensating the victim.
If a judge sees $210k awarded for $200k in medical bills he can and will sometimes knock it down, but if $190k is awarded he has never seen it raised to $200k is what he's explaining.
Imagine having a slam dunk case and opposing council allows/helps make a jury of mostly same race, just to be able to decry it later with well clearly it's not so bad, the jury just put personal prejudice when they ineveitably lose.
But I’m wrong for saying having a jury is one of the most pointless time consuming and tax expense we have, if the judge is able to say uni reverse to anything we decide, why are we here, the judge changing it means I’m wrong, the judge saying nothing means I’m right, so why tf did the judge not deal with it themselves, I actually can’t see any logical reasoning behind having a jury.
I think you kind of brushed over the idea that the judgement is being brought down, in some cases, because the law has set limits on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded. Often, the judge will not tell the jury about these limits so they do not influence the verdict. A famous example is the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial. The judge allowed the jury to make their verdict so that they make a number based on what they think the defendant should be paid, and then the amount can be adjusted based on the limits
I thought a recent opinion by ketanji supported that juries can’t get it wrong, unless the instructions were incorrect. It would only go down due to laws in place that place caps and variables in place to prevent runaway numbers, nothing is there to pump that up. Maybe I read that wrong. Who knows.
I find it strange that the jury has a say in setting awards. The jury’s only input should be Guilty/Not Guilty and then it’s up to the judge to decide, just like when determining a sentence.
Not sure if this is in your lane, but can you touch on the Young Thug lawyer contempt charge that happened the other day? On the surface to us lay people, it looks like the judge was wrong, potentially corrupt, but figured you’d have some insight into the legality of the events as they unfolded.
I mean if the plaintiff is supposed to pay $250k and the judge goes NAHHH how about $100k. Who is the say the judge doesn't find $50k come his way in the future in some way. Not saying they pay them off but how hard is it to believe?
Can the judge actually increase the amount awarded? It makes sense that they decrease it pursuant to the law, but there’s no mandatory minimum that gives them the right to increase the payout.
I once saw Judge Wapner (from The People's Court) award a plaintiff more than they were asking for. Maybe he was exceptional. He was a great judge to have on a TV show, from a PR perspective.
Make the corruption work in your favor by hiring the judge instead of a lawyer
According to Clarence Thomas, is a great way to get paid
Yeah, that's what people who can *afford* a judge do! The other 99% who go through a court are poor (and that's no accident!). So they provide the guilty verdicts, that shows to everybody how the system is good and just. Because it puts poor people in jail.
@@greenaum buddy, either stop the meds or get on them, what are you talking about?
That's only legal with the Supreme Court.
@@jasoncaldwell5627 as if corrupt judges care about laws
Working in a courthouse, I have seen a verdict go from 6 figures, to a single dollar.
What were the circumstances that made the judge do that?
I need a dollar, dollar, dollar that's what I need
@@Anthraxb0mb corruption, i imagine.
@@carrotsandrunning we found the retards guys
@@carrotsandrunning what kind of corruption?
*12 random people agree on a verdict*
One judge: "No reasonable person would ever think that."
It’s possible, say if the jury is biased or ……. not the best, Jurors are just random people picked, a judge has spent years studying law and probably knows better than the Jury if the verdict or the punishment is just.
@@generaltom6850 jury selection ends up making the jury a middle ground, it's not actually completely random, if the lawyers on both sides are good then they get rid of the super biased people...
I mean, sometimes. If you've ever read 'To Kill a Mockingbird'... 🤷🏻
Yea there's no way that a judge would know more about the law than 12 schmucks off the street.
@@generaltom6850the judge has spent years being corrupt and playing god. Many of them are just like cops with their inflated egos.
I wonder how steep the write off is, like if the Jury says $300,000. Will the Judge knock it down to something like $200,000 or like $50,000
Much steeper. In some states there are limitation, caps as low as four or five digits, but they dont tell the jury about those caps, and juries awards millions, only for the state law to be invoked, slashing the reward to a tenth or less. In states without these caps, judges look to those other state laws for guidance when issuing remitturs.
This perversion of justice is a travesty.
In that case, the only travesty is having a jury who are not lawyers and don't know about those caps.
So what’s the point of insurance?
remember the mcdonalds coffee incident? the jury wanted to lay the full weight of justice on mcdonalds but the judge cut it down to basically nothing
I think it's more like $5,000,000 to $500,000
Time to check if my judges are elected or appointed
From my experience, sadly it doesn't matter
It's both.
All are selected by people that do not care about you.
Appointed. Obama was criticized for leaving benches empty for Republicans to fill with unqualified judges (ala Cannon).
Electing judges isn’t the fairest system either unfortunately, at least in the US. John Oliver did a great piece on it.
What's more likely?
All 12 jurors, who were selected by both prosecuting and defense teams of lawyers, collectively coming to the same decision about the case, are somehow biased in their decision; or the single judge who thinks differently than those 12 people?
To be fair, there's also a reason that there's a saying that a jury is filled with people not smart enough to get out of jury duty...
@@guus19900not smart enough or just willing to?
They basically replace my wage for jury duty so why not go? I don’t get why people who can try to get out of it. If I couldn’t due to childcare or work sure. But if I can make it work I’m going. I know I can bring something to the table and not doing so would be against my own moral code. basically all it is, is, if you can help, do it. Short but all encompassing
@@Marynicole830 I felt the same way. What I found out was I was in a room with eleven idiots of varying degree.
There can be biases that weren't caught. Various -isms for example.
@@Marynicole830 you're lucky then. Some states pay as little as $5 a day. Most people in the middle class and below can't afford to miss a single day of work much less multiple days if the case drags out.
What's the point of a jury if the judge can then just say "oh jury is wrong btw"
The judge cannot do that, what he describes is a bit more complicated than a brief TH-cam short can accurately capture. Judges are only able to throw out jury verdicts under certain circumstances via a highly deferential standard of review. Remittitur is more common, but still relatively rare.
It also means the Judges have discretion on what is considered a "reasonable" person. So they can rule something unreasonable even if the majority of people fall into that category.
Trial by jury, until a judge decides you're not entitled to that right. Judges are a distinct problem, and every one needs to be accountable to the people via recall, all the way to SCOTUS
I'm pretty sure that's for criminal cases not civil
"Judges are a problem. That is why we should send them to the most powerful and pretty corrupt judges of the SCOTUS"
@@EzekiesAcheronit’s for civil cases above a certain amount as outlined in the constitution.
Also, I have lived in a state with elected judges. We ended up with Roy Moore. Twice.
my condolences. I live just over your eastern border..
I wonder if Judges can be rented like Politicians.
*cough cough* Jaun Merchan
@@freebornjames6142convicting a felon of his crimes after a long list of evidence? Lol totally
@@10Wk3y84Rpatience, friend.
A higher court than YT comments will decide the final outcome.
Capitalism breeds corruption, anybody can be bought with enough money.
@@freebornjames6142 what happened to the whole law and order thing? I thought he supported the Justice system, why is he now a convicted felon with several other pending charges? What's going on 🤣
My faith in the justice system was already nonexistent but i appreciate the honesty that keeps making it find ways to lessen it
We don’t have a justice system. We have a judicial system, and there is a big difference.
I agree our judicial system is often corrupt and things like this just prove it
I would assume it’s the same reason a judge is able to overturn a guilty verdict if they believe something went wrong with the jury, but cannot overturn an innocent verdict.
Overturning down is acceptable. Up... Yeah... That would be mental.
This is how you protect the ruling class and keep the indentured servant class in their place
in other words, the bourgeois and the proletariat
YESSIR
Like you can do anything about it.
@@keeplearning4LCommies are all about elected officials and corruption. Have you not read Marx? Man was a fucking lunatic!
How?
This actually happened to me in a criminal trial. The judge blocked evidence in the discovery process and so I was found guilty. But in the sentencing phase I was able to tell the story as it happened and I was sentenced to 0 years, 0 dollars, 0 restitution. He overturned that and gave me 3 years of probation. 2.5 years later that same judge revokes my probation for a crime I was only accused of. I was found innocent of that crime because it was so obvious the cops were lying and making stuff up. He refused the entrapment defense even though there was an extreme amount of evidence to prove entrapment. So the jury basically told the judge to go fuck himself and came back with an innocent verdict in less than 7 minutes.
Congratulations man, you survived Krooked Kops, and their Kangaroo Kourt!
Can't tell if you are trolling or not.
Judge running for reelection suddenly has insurance companies lining up to donate to the campaign…
Besides the existence of lobbyists, who are worse, expensive campaign spending is a blight on American politics. Sadly money can swing votes if you spend it the right way.
There ought to be strict limits. Give each candidate 5 minutes of TV time, maybe once a week, and that's paid for by the government, not the candidate. Then after that, strict spending limits. Just to reduce the black hole of corruption that's otherwise created.
The UK has spending limits on political campaigns, and they're taken seriously. Parties above a certain size also get to make a "Party Political Broadcast" for a few minutes, free to them, on TV to explain themselves. It's not a perfect system cos voters are dumbasses, but it removes a lot of potential for corruption.
Over here, corruption is decided at school, your old school chums all "help" each other out in later life. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. I'm talking about very expensive private schools, of course.
Up next can we get a tutorial on how to hire a judge? Because if they can do it, we should too.
Negative campaign their opponents or something.
I think it's one of those situations where if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it...
@Beregorn88 it's not one of fiduciaries. Pretty cheap on the other forms of capital.
I was taught a long time ago that the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer is, that the good lawyer knows the law extremely well, but the great lawyer knows the judge personally extremely well!
One thing that’s seems to be forgotten I t he context is a judge can only overturn a guilt verdict in a criminal case. They cannot find you guilty after you were acquitted
jury: "oh they're guilty"
judge: "jk no reasonable person would've found them guilty"
jury: "wait did the judge just call us unreasonable...?"
Don't forget that jurors don't actually know the law and sometimes come up with outright insane verdict.
@@woopsserg As long as the verdict is legal to apply, that shouldn't matter. If a normal person would find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you should probably be found guilty.
@@impishlyit9780 And why do you think it's necessarily legal or actually beyond reasonable doubt?
its a good thing that judges can overturn a guilty verdict. Better to have a 1000 bad people go free than have 1 innocent person behind bars.
@@SidPilthat's the dumbest shit I ever heard 😅
“We find the defendant guilty of… whatever” 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
Sounds like the Trump hush money trial 😅
Sounds like how Trump described the hush money trial
The laws and justice system is built to protect capital and only capital
So capitalism
Oh my God you are telling us the judges are compromised and tainted and they will favor the defendant insurance company. 😢 That makes me wonder how much money insurance companies pay judges?
No that they are more human than dome juries.
Don’t forget judges decide if they’re too biased to sit as judge for the trial for themselves. Judge we think you’re biased! Judge: hmmmmm I’ve investigated my own bias and find no guilt. I stay.
Insurance companies don't PAY judges... they DONATE to their campaigns... it's completely different, don't you see
FYI: this lawyer gets a massive cut of any money awarded by a court.
He's not exactly the most unbiased person to say that the amount of money awarded should be higher when he's getting 30-50% of the money.
If you haven't found any example of an excessive verdict then you've not been paying attention.
@@Treblaine The lawyer getting a cut of the winnings is a good thing. It puts their interests directly in line with the interests of their client while allowing clients to not have to pay them unless they win. It's literally a win-win for both parties, especially in a system where it would basically be impossible for the average person to pay for a lawyer otherwise.
In America, justice always go to the highest bidder
Depends on the damages because there are laws in many states that restrict the amount you can be awarded. It's also important to note that a Judge can only change a guilty verdict, not an innocent one.
Anyone that doesn't think that judge funds are a line item on an insurance company budget is kidding themselves
It's the reason insurance is dying in FL, the judges are bought out - against the insurers, so they're going bankrupt or leaving
@@allahbole Lol, good, get wrecked
The reason why we have a jury is because it is hard to convince 12 people of the exact same thing. Pwople don't realized that 12 people are 12 different interpretation of the event ar hand. Getting them to agree shouldn't even be possible. It hard to even bribe that many people.
I agree there should be someone willing to look at verdicts to decide if the pay off if fair or not, but it shouldn't be one person, nor should they be connected to the case
i hear this then i look to all those judgements involving truck drivers (where video proves trucker didnt cause the accident) but the person/family get 10+ mil payout because "driver inexperience/going fast" even though if the other person stayed in their lane nobody would have gotten hurt...
I’m confused. Are you talking about a criminal or civil court case? Where I live, and in much of Europe, you cannot be found ‘guilty’ during civil proceedings, just liable.
Is it not the same in the US?
I believe he's talking about both, as judges can overturn a guilty verdict in a criminal trial in some cases. But no, "guilty" is not a standard verdict in a civil case, but then again, many civil cases don't see a jury.
**cough** lobbyists
**coughing fit, dies**
**cough** lobbying = socially acceptable bribery **cough**
@@greenaumgreat response lol
ironically a courthouse is one of the most corrupt places you could possibly be
Love that jacket with that tie 👌
Little do we know, but this is a passcode given to Mike that reveals the code to a secret bunker built by the Illuminati.(he is a top secret CIA agent)
Yeah, ngl it does look quite sharp; “Calmly blued”.
It's just another example of our hypocrisy riddled system. And how those with the money make the rules.
Should start asking the jury to put down their reasoning to dispute their claim the jury was inflamed.
Why are all the good lawyers out of state 😢
In America, our original legal framework was largely based on English common law.
In all of thier history, only one king is referred to as "the great". Among other things Alfred was known to hang judges.
Think about that.
Justice? My ass!
The entire concept of the judge being able to overrule the jury verdict is inherently making having a jury irrelevant.
Probably because their kickback is based upon how much they save the ins company.
Judges run for office and accept campaign contributions... Just sayin'
I know one example of a judge overturning a jury's guilty verdict by means of a JOA. The jury found her guilty of DUI, but it turns out that the officer never actually measured her BAC, but checked the box on the report saying that he did. The woman also had an outstanding case for driving with license suspended, but her license was only suspended because of the false statement. After the prosecutor refused to drop the case, or take up the officer for perjury, the judge was furious and granted the defendant's motion for JOA.
It’s amazing how little people know about our legal system. Thank goodness for channels like this to help educate people
Thanks!
Thank you for not calling it a justice system.
@@MonkeyJedi99
The justice system refers to the criminal courts
@@roninkraut6873 Calling our current legal system a "justice" system is like calling a cardboard gruel restaurant "The Flavor Diner".
You could find justice/flavor, but you have to be able to afford to bring your own lawyer/maple syrup.
Thx Mike. I want to add-- Remititur by a judge is allowed in all 50 states when a judge believes the jury's verdict is exorbitant. The Plaintiff, aka the victim, can either accept the judges Remititur award or request a new Civil trial ( because there's no such thing as Double Jeopardy in Civil cases). An is allowed in specific states--when a judge believes the jury's award to the Plaintiff isn't sufficient, so he/she awards an additional 'Punitive' amount for Pain & Suffering and/or property damages. What part of US federal law is this under? Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure. "Based on the Remititur Law". Hmm, who votes to dissolve that "Law"?
I wonder if it has something to do with campaign donations.
I've only known so many judges, but I can say with utmost confidence that, good and bad, I have NEVER known a judge who ACTUALLY had a good idea of what an average reasonable person would think. They are wildly out of touch, immersed in a world of legal whatnottery completely divorced from normal experience, and they can't seem to recognize that.
Which is entirely correct. The average person isn't going to earn 10 million dollars in their entire life. Verdicts of tens or hundreds of millions outside of literal gigantic corporate fraud cases is moronic and insanity and judges should write it down more often.
Uufda plant, much? I'd love to see distribution and frequency stats to back up your wide sweeping declarations of your opinion.
"So how's the trial honey?"
"The jury said, 'Straight up, behind bars'. But judge said 'Bet' "
Because the Jury are human people that run on emotions and not on facts. That is how you yourself have said you have won cases.
So the judge isnt a human?
@elefecto4945 yes they are and they can be swayed as well but if they go off of their whelms they can be held to account by law.
A jury can not be sued or disbarred for voting with their emotions.
I Judge is held to a higher standard.
Judge is a human, however the judge usually has seen it all and is not that easily swayed by emotions. There are shit judges that act on a whim but that's another problem. Compare it with surgeon for example, most of the people would puke while looking on cut open human flesh but surgeons just do their job emotionless.
Tl dr the judge can just go “nuh uh you people are wrong!” Wow what a good system we have
True. Most people have no idea that the jury's verdict is only a SUGGESTION for the judge. The judge is the JUDGE for a reason. They can change or even completely overrule the jury's recommendation.
Is there any legal recourse to overrule the judge's Remittance?
Like a jury awards five million dollars to cover round the clock nurse care for the rest of a person's life- but the judge drops that figure down to just half a million, which wouldn't pay for hardly anything.
Can you do anything? Go to the court above him?
You damn sure should be able to do something about it. That’s fucked.
The whole system needs overhauled. What a jury finds should be solid and a judge shouldn’t be allowed to change it!!
No. For several reasons. Just no.
What? If course they should, otherwise why don’t we just have trial by the media
@@jameskarl424name a few then
@@jameskarl424It'd be terrible if the elite weren't able to overrule us peasants.
@@jameskarl424 Several reasons? Care to share with the class?
Judges have way too much power over a person, it's insane the defense, prosecution, and jury can all agree and ONE SOLE PERSON can just go, nah
They cannot.
Judges have friends and sponsors that own companies.
The law is written to limit liability to save money for insurance companies, who than take a small percentage of the savings to hire lobbyists to write laws for legislative bodies to pass for donations to their campaign.
Love how educational ur videos are.
for how much power the average judge has in this country, there’s a SURPRISING amount that take payoffs from companies like this
There is not.
jury makes recommendations on compensation, that is the judge's job to decide.
Precisely. Recommendations, not decisions.
so why have a jury trial because it doesn't matter with bad judges.
I'LL GO WITH THE JURY! CORRUPT JUDGES!!!!
To your point exactly, My wife and I had a jury trial for a lawsuit against a wedding venue over $9000 paid for a wedding in 2020 that didn’t happen due to Covid restrictions. The jury found that they had breached their contract and awarded us $0. Our attorney asked for a judgement not withstanding the verdict and the judge said don’t bother filing it.
A judge really should not be allowed to tell the jury they are wrong and rule differently. If there really is a belief they are wrong it should just become a new trial with a new jury. A judge should not hold that much power.
America seriously needs to rethink the power of judges.
Let’s not forget the judicial system was created to protect the rich and their assets. The court will always favor the wealthier of the two.
Isn't there an underlying principle that a judge can't go harder than the jury, only softer? Otherwise judges could disregard a jury's not guilty verdict, which I think is never allowed.
Like what happened to Depp video Heard. Johnny was suppose to get $7m fue to the jury deliberations but only got $2m due to cap laws. 🙄
that's because of the law not the judge
@@SidPil Thats what I said. "Due to cap laws."
Thats because your average jury panel has no idea about large sums of money.
Judges have FAR too much power.
I think ot is aginst constitution to increase the penalty
How is it against the Constitution? Like it's fine to say that but the judicial powers do grant that ability to judges and allows states to make the rules for their common law as well so neither is it unconstitutional in federal or state proceedings by the Constitution. Now you could say you should think it should be unconstitutional but that's a different thing than saying that it is.
Clarence Thomas is the PERFECT example of why the courts almost always rule against the little guy. In many cases, Money buys “justice” in the USA.
This reminds me of the Alex Jones cases. They awarded a lot more money than he will ever earn. I believe it’s in the billions.
He filed for bankruptcy chapter 7 but judge decided nope it’s chapter 11. Very interesting case smh
Oh and they want to take ownership of his social media but that’s not even legal as he does not own it the company does like twitter ect…
I think it's the opposite, he filed for chapter 11 but they are trying to switch it to chapter 7 liquidation.
Alex Jones deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life. Even if they take all his money, he has made his family and friends millionaires, he can just live like a millionaire with other people footing the bill for him. And he is still making more money for them while pretending he can't pay his debts (which are owed to himself and his parents)
While I don't like what Alex Jones did regarding Sandy Hook, I think the penalty was extreme. Did the parents really suffer that much financial harm to justify the penalty. It shouldn't be about hurt feelings, but actual damages.
Incredible love your videos
That seems kinda dumb. Should it not be that the Jury Decides Guilty or Not, while the Judge decides how bad the punishment is? There can be guidelines maybe, but I don't think a Jury should be deciding how much, just if Guilty or not.
its wild to me that financial compensation in court is awarded by a jury of just 12 random dudes theres got to be a better system
Honestly, the "12 random dudes" system is probably the most fair you could get without some way of measuring truth flawlessly without human input. That would be magic, though, so we stick with the 12 dudes. The fact that a judge can override the 12 dudes in a system that says you're entitled to a trail with those 12 dudes deciding the outcome is the really messed up thing.
@@impishlyit9780Yes I would rather trust 12 people who are also like 99% of us rather 1 dude who is in the group of top 1%. It's more fair for 99% of people.
Alex Jones could 100% appeal his lawsuit because the jury was 100% tampered with with people who hated his guts and are either on video or on social media seen bashing him.
It is this that makes me side with Alex Jones. I never truly like the guy but doesn't mean I'm going to let bulshit happen to somebody I don't like and wait for it to happen to me
"Wonder why that is?"
A judge tempering an overzealous jury awarding money that isn't theirs makes sense. The judge deciding unilaterally that a jury of peers didn't punish a defendant enough doesn't. It's scary if you genuinely don't understand that.
Both make sense little bro and both don’t happen only one and that’s cause judges are payed off (lobbied)by the companies cause they don’t wanna pay as much as they should
“A judge deciding that a prosecutor was not compensated fairly and needs more to account for the damages suffered makes sense but unilaterally deciding that the jury awarded too much money doesn’t”
Listen, you can flip it either way. It doesn’t make sense for the judge to overrule any jury because the point of the jury was to make that decision INSTEAD of a judge making that decision. The amount of money awarded to the prosecutor isn’t meant to be a punishment, it’s meant to be reparations for their wrongs. It’s not teaching the defendant, it’s compensating the victim.
If a judge sees $210k awarded for $200k in medical bills he can and will sometimes knock it down, but if $190k is awarded he has never seen it raised to $200k is what he's explaining.
Imagine having a slam dunk case and opposing council allows/helps make a jury of mostly same race, just to be able to decry it later with well clearly it's not so bad, the jury just put personal prejudice when they ineveitably lose.
But I’m wrong for saying having a jury is one of the most pointless time consuming and tax expense we have, if the judge is able to say uni reverse to anything we decide, why are we here, the judge changing it means I’m wrong, the judge saying nothing means I’m right, so why tf did the judge not deal with it themselves, I actually can’t see any logical reasoning behind having a jury.
I also wonder why that is. Care to tell us, since it sounds like maybe you know?
I think you kind of brushed over the idea that the judgement is being brought down, in some cases, because the law has set limits on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded. Often, the judge will not tell the jury about these limits so they do not influence the verdict. A famous example is the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial. The judge allowed the jury to make their verdict so that they make a number based on what they think the defendant should be paid, and then the amount can be adjusted based on the limits
I thought a recent opinion by ketanji supported that juries can’t get it wrong, unless the instructions were incorrect.
It would only go down due to laws in place that place caps and variables in place to prevent runaway numbers, nothing is there to pump that up.
Maybe I read that wrong. Who knows.
I find it strange that the jury has a say in setting awards. The jury’s only input should be Guilty/Not Guilty and then it’s up to the judge to decide, just like when determining a sentence.
Fun fact: a judge is allowed to lower the amount but *not allowed* to raise the amount (Dimick vs. Schiedt) awarded.
The jury is sometimes stupid, especially if you pick them all out from the city
Not sure if this is in your lane, but can you touch on the Young Thug lawyer contempt charge that happened the other day? On the surface to us lay people, it looks like the judge was wrong, potentially corrupt, but figured you’d have some insight into the legality of the events as they unfolded.
What's the point of a jury if the government can just say "ooooooooh nah"?
How much you want to bet that the judge charges the company that's being sued that full amount and pockets the rest.
Would a judge ever do so in order to get the planting money at all, instead of an amount that just wouldn’t ever be paid to them?
Corruption galore & you can't tell me the judges don't get emotional or should I say angry.
I mean if the plaintiff is supposed to pay $250k and the judge goes NAHHH how about $100k. Who is the say the judge doesn't find $50k come his way in the future in some way. Not saying they pay them off but how hard is it to believe?
Bingo
I always thought a judge couldnt overturn a not guilty verdict for the first part
As long as the justice system is corrupt, things will never get better for this country
Mike…we know what that is….don’t open a can of worms,
Can the judge actually increase the amount awarded? It makes sense that they decrease it pursuant to the law, but there’s no mandatory minimum that gives them the right to increase the payout.
Look up "additur." Happens quite often actually.
How can a reasonable man standard not be met by a jury of your peers???
Probably because the juries are more emotional than the judge?
I once saw Judge Wapner (from The People's Court) award a plaintiff more than they were asking for. Maybe he was exceptional. He was a great judge to have on a TV show, from a PR perspective.
How does this affect the prosecuter's salary?
Cause it’s against the law for the judge to raise the money?
Someone hear OJ in the wind?