Narrator: On a jury you know your options: guilty or not. But - TopicsExpress

Narrator: On a jury you know your options: guilty or not. But theres another choice that neither the judge nor the lawyers will tell you, often because theyre not allowed to and also because it might be better if you dont know. This video will tell you the 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 shouldnt be punished, the jury can nullify the law and let him go free. But before youre 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 were at it CGP Grey is now a lawyer, this is not legal advice, this is meant for entertainment purposes only. Seriously, guy, dont do anything in a court of law based on what an internet video told you. No joke. So why cant you do this? Its because nullification isnt in the law but exists as a logical consequence of 2 other laws. First, the juries cant be punished for a wrong decision, no matter what the witnesses, DNA evidence or video proof shows. Thats the point of a jury, to be the final decider. And second, when a defendant is found not guilty that defendant cant be tried again for the same crime. So there are only two stated options, guilty and not, its just that jury nullification is when the words of the jurors dont match their thoughts, for which they cant be punished and their not guilty decision cant 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 the jury nullification the righteous will of the people or 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 slaves and set them free. Cant argue with that. But the anarchy side is southern juries refusing to convict lynch mobs. Not humanity at its best but both these are juries nullifying the laws. And also juries have two options for 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 juries are protected by the first rule though the second doesnt apply and judges do have the power to overrule a guilty rule if they think the jurors arent the best. And of course a guilty defendant cant appeal, at least for a little while, which makes the guilty form of jury nullification weaker than the non guilty kind. Cool comfort, though. Given the possibility of jurors who might ignore the law as written, its 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 round about 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 its a good idea answer yes and youll be rejected but answer no with the intent to get on the jury to nullify and youve just committed perjury, technically a federal crime, which makes the optimum strategy once in 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 nationwide 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 thats a story for another time. The only question about jury nullification that might matter in the end is if jurors should be told about it and the courts are near universal in their decision No way, which again it can seem self interested. Courts do depend on the law but theres evidence that telling jurors about nullification changes the way they vote by making evidence less relevant to them, which isnt surprising, that is 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 get explicitly told about nullification compared to those who werent, which sounds bad but is also easy to imagine in situations where jurors blindly following the law would be terribly unjust. In the end, righteous will of the people or anarchy or citizen law making, 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. There may be small errors in this transcript. The Law No Lawyer Or Judge Will Tell You About That Could Get You Kicked Off A Jury upworthy