The Law You Won’t Be Told

The Law You Won’t Be Told


On a Jury you know your options: guilty, or
not. But there’s another choice that neither the judge nor the lawyers will tell you — often
because they’re not allowed to and also it might better if you don’t know. This video will tell you that third choice,
but be warned: simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury — so this
is your last chance to hit the pause button before you learn about… Jury nullification: when the defendant is
100% beyond-a-reasonable-doubt guilty but the jurors also think he shouldn’t be punished.
The jury can nullify the law and let him go free. But before your on your next jury and yell
‘Null! Booya!’ at the judge you should know that just talking about jury nullification
in the wrong circumstances can get you arrested. Though a video such as this one, simply acknowledging
the existence of jury nullification and in no way advocating it is totally OK.
And, while we’re at it: (CGP Grey is not a lawyer, this is not legal advice,
it is meant for entertainment purposes only. Seriously, guy, don’t do anything in a court of law
based on what an Internet Video told you. No joke.) So why can’t you do this? It’s because nullification
isn’t in the law , but exists as a logical consequence of two other laws: First: that juries can’t be punished for a
wrong decision — no matter the witnesses, DNA evidence or video proof show.
That’s the point of a jury: to be the decider. and, Second: when a defendant is found not-guilty,
that defendant can’t be tried again for the same crime. So there are only two stated options: guilty
or not, it’s just that jury nullification is when the words of the jurors don’t match
their thoughts — for which they can’t be punished and their not-guilty decision can’t
be changed. These laws are necessary for juries to exist
within a fair system, but the logical consequence is… contentious — lawyers and judges argue
about jury nullification like physicists argue about quantum mechanics. Both are difficult
to observe and the interpretation of both has a huge philosophical ramification for
the subject as a whole. Is nullification the righteous will of the
people or an anarchy of twelve or just how citizens judge their laws? The go-to example in favor of nullification
is the fugitive slave law: when Northern juries refused to convict escaped slaves and set
them free. Can’t argue with that. But the anarchy side is Southern juries refusing
to convict lynch mobs. Not humanity at its best. But both of these are juries nullifying the law. Also juries have two options where their
thoughts may differ from their words. Jury nullification usually refers to the non-guilty
version but juries can convict without evidence just as easily as they can acquit in spite
of it. This is jury nullification too and the jurors
are protected by the first rule, though the second doesn’t apply and judges have the power
to overrule a guilty verdict if they think the jurors are… nt the best. And, of course,
a guilty defendant can appeal, at least for a little while. Which makes the guilty form
of jury nullification weaker than the not-guilty kind. Cold comfort, though. Given the possibility of jurors who might
ignore the law as written, it’s not surprising when picking jurors for a trial, lawyers — whose
existence is dependent on an orderly society — will ask about nullification, usually in
the slightly roundabout way: “Do you have any beliefs that might prevent
you from making a decision based strictly on the law?” If after learning about jury nullification
you think it’s a good idea: answer ‘yes’ and you’ll be rejected, but answer ‘no’ with the
intent to get on the jury to nullify and you’ve just committed perjury — technically a federal
crime — which makes the optimal strategy once on a jury to zip it. But This introduces a problem for jurors who
intend to nullify: telling the other 11 angry men about your position is risky, which makes
nullification as a tool for fixing unjust laws nation wide problematic. (Not to mention about 95% of criminal charges
in the United States never make it to trial and rather end in a plea bargain, but that’s
a story for another time.) The only question about jury nullification
that may matter is if jurors should be told about it and the courts are near universal
in their decision: ‘no way’. Which, again, might seem self-interested —
courts depend on the law — but there’s evidence that telling jurors about nullification changes
the way they vote by making evidence less relevant — which isn’t surprising: that’s
what nullification is. But mock trials also show sympathetic defendants get more non-guilty
verdicts and unsympathetic defendants get more guilty verdicts in front of jurors
who were explicitly told about nullification compared to those who weren’t. Which sounds bad, but it also isn’t difficult
to imagine situations where jurors blindly following the law would be terribly unjust
— which is the heart of nullification: juries judge the law, not solely evidence. In the end righteous will of the people, or
anarchy, or citizen lawmaking — the system leaves you to decide — but as long as courts
are fair they require these rules, so jury nullification will always be with us.

Posts created 20941

100 thoughts on “The Law You Won’t Be Told

  1. This is really good for all the fellow Libertarians out there who view the state as unjust source of power and especially that jury duty is the equivalent of slavery.

  2. Wow is JURY NULLIFICATION interesting I mean JURY NULLIFICATION is such a cool topic also the fact that talking about JURY NULLIFICATION will get you of a jury? Wow!

    JURY NULLIFICATION

  3. Jury nullification has been around for a long time. It's a natural consequence of the Constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy. And while in an extreme case it may be an ultimate safety valve it actually has very limited utility as an expression of the "Will of the People."

    [1] Jury nullification is merely the expression of a jury's disinclination for some reason to convict a person who quite probably is guilty of the crime charged. It is the natural consequence of the prohibition of double jeopardy and works because the prosecution may not appeal a jury verdict of acquittal — even when under the evidence and law the defendant was unquestionably guilty.

    [2] Jury nullification doesn't change the law. It's not precedent. The law exists and continues to exist and can be applied in other cases. Jury nullification has only let a guilty person off.

    [3] For jury nullification to work the jury must acquit. That means that all the jurors necessary for acquittal must agree even when they have accepted based on the evidence that the defendant is guilty, and they must so agree even though they had been instructed by the judge that they are to apply the law as explained by him to the facts as they, the jury, find. While a single juror can generally cause a hung jury, a hung jury merely results in a mistrial; and the defendant can be retried.

    [4] Jury nullification only has meaning in criminal cases. A plaintiff can appeal an adverse verdict in a civil case.

    [5] Jury nullification works only to the extent that the prohibition on double jeopardy applies. But often one can be tried both on a state criminal charge and a federal criminal charge without violation double jeopardy, even if each charge is based on the same facts.

    You might remember the Rodney King incident in the early 1990s. The four police officers who were involved in his beating were charged under state law with various "excessive force" crimes, tried in state court and acquitted (well, one drew a hung jury as to one charge). They were subsequently tried in federal court on federal charges involving the same incident and facts, and two of the officers were convicted and sent to federal prison.

    [6] In theory of course reasons for an acquittal against the weight of the evidence and law could be noble. But historically there have been instances of jury nullification having clearly ignoble application, such as when at times in our history a jury of White men in some States would resolutely refuse to convict a clearly guilty White defendant of the murder of a Black person.

    [7] Jury nullification of course is possible only when there's a jury, i. e., when a case is being tried to a jury. But precedent comes from appellate courts deciding matters of law.

  4. This actually worked for me. Note you must actually know what Jury Nullification is (you can't just say the word and be exused)and also relate it directly to how it would cause you two be biased in the specific case their dealing with.

  5. I have to make a correction: you will still be allowed to be on a jury while being aware of jury nullification, the only instance that you will be removed from a jury is if you claim the rights of jury nullification, which still should not be allowed considering it is a constitutional right to nullify and allows you to grant someone innocence that though you know to be guilty has done nothing wrong.

  6. This isn’t a legal concept, just a loophole. Of which there are hundreds, if not thousands. And mostly not for us common folk.

  7. Not really an issue in Australia, since we have limitations on Double Jeopardy (happened in a sexual assault case a couple of years ago, where a guy was acquitted then wrote a letter gloating & confessing to it and was immediately arrested)

  8. Ok WHEN should you NOT mention Jury Nullification?

    There is also something called the 'Juror's Handbook'.

    One EASY way to get out of jury duty is get a traffic ticket and register for court.
    Worked for me one time 🙂

    Except I still had to go to court and pay…..

    If you are on trial for anything you cannot serve on a jury.

  9. A question for everyone.
    How many of you would want a millennial or whatever the SJW generation to sit on YOUR jury?
    Or would you want a real adult to make decisions?

    Using Jury nullification to get out of jury duty can get a person convicted wrongly.

    And that person could be YOU.

  10. thanks for the info, BUT… Anarchy is not BAD! So equating Anarchy to pro-slave jurys is unfair! It paints this enter philosophical political ideology fundamentally wrong.
    In fact, most anarchist out would point out that True Anarchy is the only way to have the unfetter will of the people!
    So, just becareful of your word choice. After all, you point was, Juries could either choose a morally high and more noble
    decision, or, could choose what is unfair bsed on there own bias and personal motivations.
    Unless of course you are saying that the State is the only arbitor of Altruistic virtue, which i can't image you are.
    So thank you again for the video and I will leave it at that!

  11. In the courtroom its about the law regardless of right and wrong. In the jury room its about right and wrong regardless of the law. My epic quote of the day.

  12. I get to watch a fun youtube video AND I never have to do jury duty? And you think I'm gonna pause the tape? Lmao nah fam.

  13. No problem in Scotland where there is a third verdict which is not proven. This opens the possibility of a retrial if further evidence is found.

  14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5GzxzvIkVY&t=2260s Atty. Richard FINE – dis-barred for fighting intrinsic corruption. FINE on how to fight back.

  15. The few times that I've been chosen to go on jury service, my god, I wouldn't want any of those people deciding my fate, they 're either extremely old, too young or don't want to be there at all.
    They need to pay jury's a wage.

  16. That, sir, is not the definition of anarchy, do some research before using the pop culture definition of a word and not the real one.

  17. Grey: “Watching May prevent you from ever serving in a jury.”

    9 million people: It’s free real estate!

    Grey: Am I a joke to you?

  18. Isn't the jury being fully aware that the person is not guilty but passing a verdict guilt only jury nullification if it occurs in country with fair criminal codes. A good example would be Soviet courts convicting not guilty people.

  19. Oh. Well if one of the questions they ask you is "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?", and you HAVE to answer honestly or else it's a crime… I would've gotten out of jury duty without even hearing about nullification! A lot of our current laws/sneaky corporate loopholes (in the U.S.) are HORRIBLE, and it's only getting worse! So I'd have to say "Yes" to that question.

  20. while everybody is on the very important subject of the law, i want to mention…
    I like the way you drew the physicists' hair

  21. well, the good thing is that neither I nor the smart people in my life had any idea what this video was about, to I guess I'm OK to be on jury duty?

  22. There are 2 types of court rooms 1 is international or high seas court and the other is common pleas court high seas/international is the bankers court don't board the ship don't cross the bar

  23. Narrotator: warning, do not watch this video!!!!!

    Me: unless your a twelve year old kid who has NO idea what is going on

  24. I am from Europa. But the things,mostly on papar they say art this/that,.but not artikel so/so, not only they think you are sombudy don,t know law,but the things they dont,tell are things,you can yuse against them

  25. when i was in 4th grade we did a goldilocks on trial for soup and stuff
    i was on jury along with 11 more classmates where and i told them about jury nullification and we all agreed upon it and as soon as it came out all our mouths i got ratted out and got a detention
    best detention reason ever

  26. Something I'd have to give deeper thought. Almost sounds like the jury would lack understanding, or found incompetent?

  27. In my opinion, laws and regulations in America should be agreed upon by a general consensus of its citizens, but it seems we are getting further away from that as politicians behind closed doors, are making up our minds for us. Jury nullification is one way to turn the tide on laws that don't fit our way of life. If you don't want to serve on a jury, then when you are asked if you can provide a decision of either guilty or not guilty, just say the you know about jury nullification and chances are either you won't be picked to serve or the defense will ask you to not say it again and choose you for that reason. There is nothing wrong with jury nullification but the courts don't like it much.

  28. Jurors nullification is to in the US constitution ! That is what makes this a republic and not a democracy ! that is the way to judge the laws our elected officials make.(ie if you can't convict someone on a law it is nullified) and you cannot go to jail for doing it. jurors dont have to say why they voted that way to anybody!

  29. I believe 90 percentage in courts are NOT far and "WE THE PEOPLE" all know that by sending a innocent person to prison anyways. Thr are no justification or fairness what so ever with minorities or citizens. We all know the value by milking citizen and sending them to prison and by the way of corruptions in the system.
    It needs to STOP hopefully one of these days and WE THE PEOPLE need to wake up and smell the real fowlders crystal.

  30. I certainly hope that by watching this video I'll never be called for jury duty again. I mean I've even considered committing some sort of crime just to take my name off of being called up for jury duty ever gain.

  31. Well I just read the Constitution of the United States. And it clearly says you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. When the jury find you innocent or no contest. Another words double jeopardy. This YouTube is a United States government scam

  32. I have looked all over for the answer to this question but have not found it, can you tell other jurors in deliberation with you about jury nullification legally?

  33. An argument FOR "Jury Nullification". Remember learning about "checks and balances" in our government? CONGRESS passes a "law", but the PRESIDENT can "check" congress and VETO the law, BUT congress can "check" the president and OVERRIDE THE VETO. THEN, the COURTS can "check" both and declare the law "unconstitutional".

    BUT WHO "CHECKS" THE COURTS? Basically, NOBODY. THAT is where "Jury Nullification" comes in. If WE THE PEOPLE believe the law is unjust, THIS IS HOW WE "CHECK" THE COURTS.

    And YES, EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW THIS.

  34. I mean, really nullification is a tool that you use when you need it. Going into a trial with intent to nullify means you are going into a trial with no info and intend to come to a particular verdict. It’s like going into jury duty and saying “yeah he’s guilty as fuck.”

  35. Judge: Excuse me sir, you are required to serve on the jury.
    Me: No, Jury nullification and such.
    Judge: Have a nice day!

  36. My brother had a jury trial in federal court. The jury wanted to find him not guilty, but the judge told the jury that they had to find him guilty as the 8th district has no entrapment laws.

  37. 10 million people have watched this, I hardly think that we are all going to be arrested. Not only that, but it isn't even illegal. Finally, I am not a citizen of the United States of America. I live in the United Kingdom.

  38. jurry nullification in action for right to travel… Opening statement – google jurry nullification. US v shapiro states it is a constitutional protected unalienable right. Jurry how do you find me was I traveling or was I driving? Have a great day criminal judge and criminal prosecutor. IF the jackass criminal, commonly known as judge, holds you in contempt demand the contract saying that you would not say those words (there is none so it can't be civil contempt); judge where is the corpus delecti (no injured party can't be criminal)… Judge why did you just commit fraud on the stand? Are you purposefully showing biasm dismissing you from this case under 28 USC 455?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top