Jury Nullification Conviction Tossed by MI Supreme Court - Ep. 6.639

[@danielschein6845]

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.

[@Nickvec]

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.

[@shanepowers7566]

Or a computer.

[@Cutest-Bunny998]

@@shanepowers7566 kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6PTnoqcjMeXjqs

[@joechang8696]

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

[@nothingman3542]

The Steve Avery trial was absolute jury tampering by this standard.

[@Carahan]

Then DAs would never issue press releases till conviction if that was the case.

[@matthewk6731]

Joe Chang. Nice catch. But the law is not applied equally to those in power.

[@alanmcentee3035]

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.

[@jwrosenbury]

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.

[@louisjantzen7141]

*Sounds like two of those 'Supreme' Court justices aren't fit for the job.*

[@Hethalean]

It's far too depressing that there is no recourse for this guy being quite obviously falsely put in jail.

[@4945three]

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. :)

[@Sight-Beyond-Sight]

Jury nullification is why so few people were convicted during the prohibition years.

[@jeremy67A]

When there are laws on the books that suppress the Truth, it's never a good idea.

[@DVankeuren]

I am thinking that the court itself should be giving this information to every juror. Not doing so seems dishonest and borderline criminal.

[@Uberragen21]

"If you run in front of a car, you'll get tired. If you run behind a car, you'll get exhausted..." 🤣🤣🤣🤣👌

[@donaldfrapwell4116]

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"

[@LadyViolet1]

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.

[@donaldfrapwell4116]

@@LadyViolet1 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.

[@LadyViolet1]

@@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.

[@DePaul31]

I played this video twice. I didn't see any ads running during the video either time. I don't subscribe to KZbin premium -YMMV

[@starhawke380]

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.

[@ccpperrett7522]

Thank you Steve. Interesting topic! Great for discussion.

[@johngori6518]

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...

[@emgreenenyc]

[John Peter] Zenger case, in which American patriots were charged with sedition against the British crown, and jurors nullified in those cases

[@johntracy72]

The real irony would have been the jury in his trial nullifying the charge against him.

[@lilricky2515]

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.

[@KuariThunderclaw]

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.

[@sittingindetroit9204]

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.

[@JeremyHolovacs]

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.

[@fclopez1]

Could you do a video on " 12 angry men ". I think it could be very informative.

[@earlphilbrook6075]

There actually is a movie called 12 angry men

[@sylviaelse5086]

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.

[@BrianDaleNeeley]

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?

[@LadyViolet1]

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.

[@harroldwheeler-jr5926]

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?

[@torbar9603]

I did not see any ads in the video.. only after..

[@billpaoli9083]

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.

[@graygrumbler4253]

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).

[@jodygoar7071]

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.

[@WhereWhatHuh]

I am imagining a law that reads: "Inasmuch as it is contrary to the policy of this state for jurors to know that they cannot be prevented from voting their own consciences, even when their consciences may be contrary to the letter of the law, any person who willingly and knowingly states that a juror may vote his or her own conscience regardless of the law, or places such information into print, shall be guilty of Potential-Juror Nullification, and shall be punished as the court may find appropriate." Hmmm. Maybe there should be a subsection that reads, "To prevent the empaneling of a jury that knows that it may vote its conscience despite the provisions of the law, every juror shall be asked, during _voir dire_ whether he or she is aware that a jury is permitted to vote its conscience, regardless of the law. Furthermore, before the jury is sent to deliberate, the judge in the case shall ask the jury if its members are aware of this fact." That should cover it ... but just to make sure ... one more subsection: "Any person who has become aware of the historical figure, William Penn, or who has become aware of William Penn's trial, or who has read the Constitution of the United States of America, is permanently barred from sitting on any jury within this jurisdiction." The moment that becomes law, I will make a mint on my new book, "The New Foolproof Way to Avoid Jury Duty."

[@RayDrouillard]

I remember hearing of a group called the Fully Informed Jury Association. It was a long time ago, and I don't recall the exact circumstances. I think someone told me about it after I mentioned that I had been called to jury duty. It didn't matter, since I have never actually served. I remember listening some court officer's rousing about the important part we were going to play in the American justice system, but I never got called.

[@mitchellstadnik752]

Enjoyed your episode, yes it does happen, I know of a case in a small Pennsylvania town where a active duty marine .got in a neighbor dispute and got in trouble, he was punished by the UCMJ quite sufficiently, however the DA overreached and placed civilian charges on him ,he admitted on the stand the details, the jury felt he was punished enough, not guilty...

[@mitchellstadnik752]

The story gets even better ,a few weeks later on a separate trial of a violent armed robbery suspect the defendants out of town lawyer referred to previous case and criticized it,during closing arguments

[@bootslangley4875]

hahahah, that was a briliant one, Canadian Robot Lady!!!!!!!!! OH, BTW, great show Steve!!!

[@Luvenia48]

The answer to all of this is to spread the word of Jury Nullification NOW and NOT just outside a Court Room. Spread the word, tell people, and ask them to pass on the information. I found that if you tell the TRUTH while being questioned for Jury Duty you will NEVER be picked for said Jury, sad but true, the system, the LEGAL system proves we have NO JUSTICE system. A FOR-PROFIT prison system would not exist if we had a JUSTICE system.

[@RayDrouillard]

"... but if you run behind a car, you'll get exhausted." Not my car. It doesn't have an exhaust. 😁

[@rymat1427]

A Justice needs to take the class on legal research and writing! The basic principles they teach is Primary Authority and Primary Persuasive!

[@williamthompson2941]

Heads up. Judges in NY do not say if you find this the defendant is guilty if not find this the jury is not. They do not even have to sum up the facts. The jury is also told that the jury MUST follow the judges instructions as to the law.

[@bradroon5467]

I think it was Sparf & Hansen v United States in which the US supreme Court basically ruled that judges can overrule a jury's decision. A lawyer states this was unconstitutionally based ruling to overturn jury nullification decisions.

[@joelongjr.5114]

Maine and Michigan both start with "M". Maybe that was confusing the judge.

[@smegskull]

Jury nullification is why we don't have debtor's prisons any more... It's also why every ToS you read makes you waive your right to a jury trial.

[@swdierks]

Please tell me how telling the truth, even in the middle of a trial, should be a problem? In the movie, "A Time To Kill", the defense attorney came close, and the jury acquitted, even thought it was beyond obvious that the defendant was guilty. Steve, please, you are an attorney, please explain why ANYONE would care? Why can't a defense attorney explain this to a jury? It's the truth!!!!

[@georgestreicher252]

I was in the final pool of people that were chosen to be on a jury (around 50). The judge told us he will tell us how to interpret the law. If you thought otherwise, he would escort you out of the courthouse. I thought to myself, "You son of a b___h. I'll practice jury nullification if I thought it applied to the case." Don't let on you know what jury nullification is, just use it if it applies. Hint, Second Amendment trumps all gun laws and the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified.

[@Black2th]

4 ads for a 10 minute clip?? Cmon man.

[@brett76544]

I like those 45 minute ads in a 5 minute video.

[@yadayada752]

I never get ads. I am not signed in & have no account with KZbin

[@Reaperofwind]

Was he allowed a jury trial? That would make the trial interesting.

[@lisagrafton2529]

Isn't that when the judge becomes the 12th juror and can overturn what a jury decided if he/she finds it to be not reasonable according to evidence presented?

[@garymartin9777]

I understand the desire of the government to keep jurors uninformed of their power to nullify. The government would like to have unbiased and consistent jury verdicts across all trials and types of crimes. The concept of nullification depends on a juror having a truly held belief that a law is unjust and should not be enforced. However, in modern society it is completely impossible to keep this power a secret from the general population. Communicating the power is protected by freedom of speech. If you know of nullification and are called to serve, use the power sparingly and wisely. It's not a license to just find someone not guilty because you can.

[@LouisEmery]

Here's an idea. Can a juror during secret deliberation explain to the other 11 jurors what is jury nullification? I find that jury nullification is a reflection of the natural state of humanity (individuals deciding what's going to happen to another individual outside of the state), which balances against a complex system of laws (which is for many reasons necessary as well -- obviously). It gives a chance for one out of 12 people to deny the power of the state, if they morally object to a law. One denied conviction does not unravel the system of laws. Rather, I think it tames it. (Notice in the above I said "laws" and not "justice", the latter of which is an ambiguously-defined ideal concept. For example, no one can claim justice is served in an ambiguous case, because there is always a group that would disagree.

[@orppranator5230]

Jury nullification exists because deliberations are secret. It exists and is legal, therefore it is OK to talk about during deliberations.

[@QALibrary]

So in the USA are there entrance for different types of people for the courthouse? and everyone separate? Was this guy just lucky not to talk to anyone that was already part of a jury?

[@paulbrown7775]

For the definitive example of jury nullification read "The Devil and Daniel Webster".

[@jeanbails1981]

Would you consider doing a program on our way-back Socialist Judge, Justin Ravitz? He is deceased; was much loved. He did some unusual things in his courtroom. My son can tell you the details on this Detroit judge as he is the history whiz.

[@DrPerlyl]

Very good explanation.

[@richardrice3137]

too bad juries don't respond that way when a person violates a policy instead of a law. if it is ok to do something based on a policy that violates a law, such as excessive force causing death, one should be found guilty of murder instead of getting off free just because they followed a policy instead of a law.

[@atburke6258]

But justices of that quality probably thought it applied because both Maine and Michigan start with the letter "M". Here I thought it was the average American voter who was not well informed???? A T Burke

[@jimBobuu]

Ok, so when is it safe to bring it up? I have heard so many contradictory explanations from sources that I have no clue of their actual credentials, that I really have no idea of what's acceptable on the subject. I know what I think it should be, but really outside of avionics I wouldn't listen to my opinion either. :-)

[@north4986]

What do you think would happen if a prospective juror asks about jury nullification, or says they believe in it?

[@iheartcryptoverse2857]

They would get out of jury duty.

[@Hiker_who_Sews]

Whenever someone complains to me in a conversation about the outcome of Trump's impeachment, I remind them of jury nullification. Just because something is allegedly illegal, doesn't make it wrong. Kind of the flip side of a previous video where a legal professional said something to the effect, "Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right."

[@matthewk6731]

I'm guessing that if a juror brought this up to fellow jurors in deliberations that this might be considered jury tampering.

[@paulcollyer801]

Unless you’re standing... when kid logic matches legal logic 😂😂😂 Had kids work round “rules” just in that way before 😂😂

[@tracewallace23]

All stand for the rest of this video

[@normanlewis290]

If thay had up held, then I could practice law without being a lawyer.

[@patwalsh52]

I understand some people are exempt from jury duty. So other then Lawyers what about judges, pollutions, cops, US marshals, other law enforcement Jobs? who are the exceptions and who decides?

[@fredblowers9141]

Watch the original version of the movie 12 Angry Men with Peter Fonda. They do almost everything that Steve Lehto says the they are not allowed to do.

[@glennchartrand5411]

The reason a jury is composed of regular people instead of Judges is we want the State to not only prove guilt but also prove the law is fair. If a 4 year old stole a candy bar would you convict her of shoplifting? No, you'd be sitting in the jury room wondering about what kind of asshole the prosecutor is and how the Hell did a Judge rule that a 4 year old was competent to stand trial. The reason for jury nulification is to bring some common sense into the proceedings. (Something two of the States Supreme Court Justices clearly lack.)

[@venician2face]

Interesting case, but it seems obvious that the result is the only simple language interpretation of the law in question. This falls into the category of prosecutorial misconduct where DA's are trying to create a law that does not exist. One can only speculate the incentive is for self aggrandizement and/or career pumping. This is a major problem in the American jurisprudence system. See Sidney Powell's book, "License to Lie".

[@3Zeddy2]

Jury nullification because NATURAL LAW!! BECAUSE the each individual is sovereign NOT the state. Jury nullification is not a bug of our system IT'S A CORE FOUNDATIONAL FEATURE.

[@drdon999888]

Running in front of car must be directed towards protesters....LMAO

[@stalkingrooster]

I would argue that telling the truth of law,even to a juror can't be tampering. Not a lawyer,so am I correct or not

[@RonKris]

What I hate to hear about are cases where the jury convicts someone with zero evidence, only he said, she said. It happens every day in America.

[@stoneyswolf]

So basically you got arrested and convicted for exercising his first amendment rights

[@spudhead169]

Can the judge overturn a jury's verdict though?

[@davidhibbs3396]

Only to make punishment less severe then the jury demands.

[@johnzientek735]

Maine and Michigan both start with m's maybe that was his thought.

[@suedemays9046]

As it should have. Everyone should know about j.n. because the law makes huge mistakes with no reasonable recourse. Appeal courts get it right fifty percent of the time at best.

[@massivecumshot]

"Judge" Viviano needs to be tampered with.....by a 2 X 4.

[@grahvis]

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.

[@claudgurr431]

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.

[@grahvis]

@@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.

[@ffggddss]

@@grahvis Did William Penn keep his hat on because he was a Quaker? (Was he?) Fred

[@GunFunZS]

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.

[@seneca983]

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".

[@GunFunZS]

@@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?

[@seneca983]

@@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.

[@GunFunZS]

@@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.

[@norezenable]

@@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.

[@bloodgain]

"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.

[@lilacdoe7945]

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.

[@lilacdoe7945]

@@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.

[@bloodgain]

@@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.

[@lilacdoe7945]

@@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.

[@lq7777]

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.

[@wilsonle61]

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.

[@seneca983]

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.

[@ralphbentley5499]

@@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?

[@briceyokem9236]

I agree, see what I said about local Juries.

[@briceyokem9236]

@@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.

[@seneca983]

@@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).

[@whirledpeaz5758]

The dissenting Judge has demonstrated a significant flaw in his ability to reason and needs to be removed from the bench.

[@Andres64B]

How much do you want to bet he is/was a Republican?

[@whirledpeaz5758]

@Pol Pot 2024 RINO, Republican in name only.

[@WhiteTrashMotorsports]

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.

[@chuckwingo11]

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.

[@WhiteTrashMotorsports]

@@chuckwingo11 you are correct however they were smart enough to Incorporate it into our system of laws also.

[@kennethmwitalis2965]

Law and justice are not always the same thing. Jury nullification exists to make sure justice is done.

[@briceyokem9236]

@@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.

[@warrenpierce5542]

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.

[@aaronmoran5753]

Why did it have to go to the Michigan Supreme Court for someone to actually know the Law?

[@beastshawnee]

right?! I wonder this when legislators write obviously unconstitutional laws all the time!

[@TheGuruStud]

B/c shut up and fill the prisons. Also, my career needs to look awesome.

[@rjhornsby]

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.

[@matthewk6731]

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.

[@shanepowers7566]

They are lying sacks of shit.

[@dooleyknoted5951]

Judges should be charged with jury tampering for NOT informing the jury of their RIGHT to nullify!

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

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.

[@XFizzlepop-Berrytwist]

@@SmallSpoonBrigade Well a lot of laws are wrong, and need reformed.

[@swdierks]

@@SmallSpoonBrigade Abuse of Power? Setting someone free? That's quite an expansive view of that concept.

[@robwiljas]

​@@SmallSpoonBrigade It absolutely is a right.

[@jeremyperala839]

Rights are not given. Simple concept.

[@steveem7032]

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.

[@kevinkarcher7508]

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.

[@williammassey8212]

Kevin Karcher There is also a Russian version. "12" A film by Nikita Mikhalkov. A good demonstration of the different biases in different countries.

[@arenjay3278]

People should be able to sue for free for wrongful arrest.

[@NickR..]

Police departments would start to go broke within a week.

[@mwduck]

It happens. Framed as a civil rights violation.

[@marionsvendrowski180]

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.

[@jackssmirkingrevenge7301]

Prosecutors have their thumbs on the scales and hate having their unfair advantages challenged.

[@Dr.M.VincentCurley]

(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

[@tartarus12]

KZbin is getting obnoxious with these ads that play in the middle of videos.

[@ateamfan42]

I agree. Watching YT on my mobile is pretty much intolerable. Fortunate for desktop browsers there is a solution: AdBlocker for KZbin™ Removes all annoying Ads and banners from KZbin.

[@tartarus12]

Paige B I have that on my laptop but I was referring to my phone.

[@debeeriz]

@@ateamfan42 there is on a mobile too, but its not as easy to do

[@Andres64B]

Don't use the app, and get the AdBlock browser to watch KZbin. Soooo much better.

[@bryancarlson3673]

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!!

[@uxie6177]

Letting them know you're aware of it is pretty much instant dismissal 100% of the time.

[@levelup1279]

Fam you should have hid that knowledge, without an informed juror then he might have been subject to bad laws.

[@mecraig6291]

Judges want to be the only one's that are allowed to Tamper with a Jury.

[@SoloRenegade]

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.

[@chrislenz6634]

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.

[@s1mph0ny]

2 out of 7 judges literally too stupid to identify a juror, wow

[@larryaftertheroad6174]

I see the judges that voted against this case are the ones who gave you the two thumbs down

[@Back2SquareOne]

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.

[@jwrosenbury]

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.

[@jeffarchibald3837]

Even if sworn he was merely educating them, it should be legal.

[@brianstelter7067]

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.?

[@bobking4570]

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?

[@braddavis9130]

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.

[@Rastafaustian]

Am I insane to think jury nullification is one of the main points of having a jury system?