Bet You Didn't Know Judges Can Ignore A Jury's Verdict!
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- Bet You Didn't Know Judges Can Ignore A Jury's Verdict! Subscribe to @LawByMike for more tips!
⭐ Become a member of THE INNER CIRCLE to get exclusive perks⭐
www.youtube.co...
⚖️ Questions? Issues?👇
👉 DM me on FB: go.lawbymike.c...
👉 DM me the word QUERY on IG: ig.me/m/lawbymike
📲 OR TEXT 279-529-6453 (279-LAW-MIKE)
👻 Join My Snapchat: go.lawbymike.c...
📸 Instagram: go.lawbymike.co...
📘 Facebook: go.lawbymike.co...
▶️ Subscribe To My CZcams: go.lawbymike.co...
🎵 TikTok: go.lawbymike.co...
📰 Need PR Help? Check Out Otter PR: go.lawbymike.c...
#learn #law #lawyer #lawbymike #repeatafterme #tiktok #youtubeshorts #cop #cops #lawyers #legal #attorney #lawschool #hacks #legal
DISCLAIMER (Of course, I'd have one 😁)
Hey, you might think that this info makes me your lawyer, but it doesn’t and I’m not. Sorry, but I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER unless we have an engagement agreement. I am just providing public information here, like a library does, and am not providing you with legal advice about your situation. So, it would be totally unreasonable for you to conclude we have an attorney-client relationship just because you're viewing this information.
Dang so I could’ve been paying off 1 judge instead of 12 jurors this whole time huh
Thanks law by mike you just saved me a lot of money in the future
Ok so, you didn't watched the whole short!!!!!
Joke flew right over your head buddy
Judge still needs evidence tho to make you innocent
@@germanfisch simple get someone to bribe the jury then get the judge to prevent evidence the jury was bribed
how are people not understanding that this comment is just a joke? It's there for a quick chuckle, you guys don't need to let it get to your head and go "But it needs alot of evidence and the jury has to be stupid!!"
“Don’t expect this to save you”
*corrupt judges enter chat*
Money talks
POV: your a government with a lot of money and committed a crime
the American government investigating itself back in the 80's: *We have decided the president Ronald Reagan is not guilty for funding terrorists and a inhumane dictatorship*
U better call Saul
Lawyers:Hahahaha
To be clear, a judge can NEVER overturn a not guilty verdict in a criminal case. It doesn't matter "if the trial was fair."
No but he can render a mistrial if he suspects jury tampering or that the jury is unduly biased such as when a jury votes not guilty when the person is on camera commiting the murder but they still wont convict them based on political beliefs, instead of what the law says.
@@gamergodofjustice
That is absolutely not true. If the jury acquits, the matter is over.
@@MrVedude you are wrong.
@@gamergodofjustice
Yes it is. Look at the 5th amendment's Double Jeopardy clause. SCOTUS answered this question in Evans v. Michigan. If a judge or jury acquits a defendant in error, the defendant still cannot be tried again
@@MrVedude if the jury is bribed or intentionally votes not guilty for political reasons or there is misconduct among the jury it's not double jeopardy the jury verdict is thrown out as a mistrial and the case is retried by an untampered jury.
Jury Nullification still needs a video.
He doesn’t have the guts to mention it and risk losing his legal license. 😂
He said it already. Judge cannot overturn a “not guilty” verdict from jury. The vice-verse doesn’t work.
Shhhhhh 😆
@Japan Panda because of the constitution. A verdict should only be able to be overturned if doing so is favorable to the defendant. That’s a core principle that the country was founded upon
Not to mention it would have the propensity to further increase corrupt and lead to more innocent people going to prison. Do we really want that?
@@japanpanda2179 did you just ask why its illegal to send someone to jail even if the jury know they didn't commit it
Judges do frequently lower punitive damages based on statutory caps as well.
A judge cannot "Find them innocent" they are innocent until proved guilty. The judge can find them NOT GUILTY.
Same thing
@@user-bo9qz2yr3w no not even remotely close
@@user-bo9qz2yr3w assuming someone's guilty before Fair trial forms a bias it's the whole reason why the term innocent until proven guilty has been written into the law. For thousands of years innocent people have gone to jail or been punished for crimes they didnt commit just because everyone thought they were guilty before the trial started.
@@SuperJhon360 why does that matter that does stop the fact that if you're innocent you're not guilty and if you're not guilty you're innocent
@@TylerMarkRichardsonThere is a difference though, if you are innocent, you are innocent period. If you are not guilty, you are not automatically innocent, you might HAVE commited the crime but the evidence against you was not enough to convict you.
I like how this will never be relevant to me yet I still watch every video all the way through
You never know man
You never know when you accidentally plan to murder very important politicians, then attempt to escape to Slovenia. Accidents happen, man
Knock on wood
The chance of our being relevant is low, but ours importance if it is, is high
That's what they all say
These are food for if i ever go to America
You can come here and tour just don’t stay.😂
@@Lil_cinnomanroll yeah I don't think anyone wants to go to the USA in Europe outside of vacations
@@KeanuCheems Are you sure? One of my former professors moved to the USA from France.
@@KeanuCheems I mean I live in America and certainly wouldn't want to move to a country like the UK where I'd get paid less than half for what I do. I'm not making a generalization either, that's the difference in the average salaries in my field. Really, other than universal healthcare I don't see a strong appeal of moving
Oh yes The JNOV that's also sometimes represented in TV shows
I had a professor tell us once that juries still have the power decide law and that nobody wants you to know that. For example, if someone technically committed a crime but you believe that it shouldn’t be a crime then you can vote them innocent even though they would be guilty of the “crime”. This was prominent during prohibition when people were tried for alcohol, many times they would be found innocent despite breaking the law.
Isn’t that called jury nullification?
You can think of a judge overturning your conviction because of a bad jury like a presidential veto on a law.
It practically never happens and only exists for the worst case
A Judge cannot overrule a 'Not Guilty' verdict and declare you 'Guilty'
That transition was SMOOTH
I saw this happen once back in the late 1980’s. Postpartum psychosis wasn’t really understood or even known in the US and the judge who had read about it overturned the conviction of a woman who had been convicted in the death of her daughter. The defense hadn’t even heard of postpartum psychosis and never mentioned it in the trial. The prosecution appealed but I don’t remember the final outcome.
I was always under the impression that a judge already had made their decision long before the trial began
They should try paying Jurors a decent amount of money,
They aren't supposed to be employees, they are literally people chosen at random
This is so weird, you're way more chill in these older videos lol
Ok but the hammer and the foot transition was so smooth dude!
A friend and his ex divorced. With a joint lawyer they divided everything together. The judge overturned and awarded him much more. She got 80% of the debt, he got the house, she had to pay him $500 a month he was given the new car. He petitioned to have the $500 a month spouse support removed.
I like that jury nullification is incontrovertible for innocence but a judge can pull a guilty verdict back to innocent. That’s commitment to the value of innocence until proven guilty.
Judge Judy pic in background 👏
Me as a non native english speaker trying to figure out the difference between a jury and a judge:
Judge = 1 person. They are a legal/law professional (studied law for years)
Jury = 12 people. They are random people in society with no legal background
@@Zxv975 oh thank you very much
@@evolnizark4712and a jury usually has no ties to the person in court but I’m not sure
@@Healthandwealth9422 no ties and I think a variety that try to represent them. So a black person won't get an all white jury and vice versa. More of mix of people, but I'm also not sure about that
@@evolnizark4712 The idea of a jury is to have a group of people who are as unbiased as possible, to serve as a check and balance of the legal professionals in court. These are a group of private citizens, called for jury duty to discuss and decide who's statements to believe in a trial.
The jury gets to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty, of each charge against the defendant, and they must *all* agree. See hung jury for what happens if they don't all agree. A jury is the final say on a not guilty verdict, so they can legally let the defendant go free, in spite of evidence, called jury nullification. Usually, they are instructed to decide based on evidence and the law.
What the jury doesn't get to decide, is the specifics of the punishment. That's what the judge determines. The judge is a legal professional who controls the court procedures, and decides the sentence to go with a guilty verdict.
Imagine getting called to jury just to have the judge overrule you like wtf did I go there for then?
imagine putting the fate of your life in the hands of 12 random idiots taken off the street. its crazy this is the system we have
It's not entirely in their hands. The 12 jurors can set you free, but they cannot guarantee that you will go to prison if they convict. A not guilty verdict is legally binding, a guilty verdict is a recommendation. The judge decides what that guilty verdict will mean for you, and a judge can overrule a guilty verdict if they think the jury convicted an innocent person.
It's rare that it happens for a judge to overrule a guilty verdict. It also won't mean the defendant goes free. It could also mean another trial.
Very nice looping on this one
Next do one on nullification!
If a Defendant can prove Due Process Violation the Guilty verdicate can be thrown out!
And it's sad they can't overturn a not guilty sometimes. The jury from the Amon Bundy trial went in with a not guilty from the selection process. They had video of him committing the crimes he was on trial for, the video was played along with his recorded confession and he and all his cronies were still found "not guilty."
Same with Kyle Rittenhouse. That boy crossed 2 state lines with his rifle and murdered 3 men and the all white jury found him Not Guilty. He even confessed to the murder while talking to a Majorie Greene Taylor after the trial but unfortunately, he cannot be prosecuted twice for the same crime due to Double Jeopardy.
I swear to God you have some of the cleanest transitions
Honest judges with integrity and a brain will help !!
Ppl have to understand judicial systems are a business. More prosecutions pays more. Yes it's salaried but more ppl put away, will pay better !! Jail's make more if your there then what you pay working and paying taxes!!
I believe in Jury Nullification. Where the Jury despite what the law says, renders a not guilty verdict because they believe the law to be unfair. It's good to know that although judges can give a not guilty verdict they can't in turn render a guilty verdict. I still think the justice system in the USA is a sick and twisted joke in practice.
Mike have you read "To kill a mockingbird bird" if so would you consider that to be a viable situation where a judge could appeal the guilty verdict? Of course anybody other than mike is welcome to answer as well.
A judge can also ignore a plea deal that was agreed on by both sides
I've noticed that there is a picture of Judge Judy placed onto the top fireplace. Any relationship? Or a "props" for the topic?
A judge can overturn a Guilty verdict because of a stupid prosecutor.
I recall a case where an undercover cop collaborated with a guy to murder someone, and stopped the guy just before the murder.
The prosecutor stupidly charged the defendant with Conspiracy to Commit Murder. They went to trial. He was found guilty. His attorney immediately moved for JNOV because that charge required all parties to have intended to commit the final act. The cop obviously did not intend to kill the victim. The judge overturned the verdict and found him Not Guilty.
The prosecutor should have settled for Attempted Murder.
your videos are very Better Call Saul pilled. idk why I cant stop watching
Mike is basically Saul Goodman, but without the... Saul Goodman parts
He's jimmy migil
@@332ndproductions8 he's almost Slippin' Jimmy
Without the CRIMINAL part yeah
... as far as we know.
I was actually curious about this. Thanks for answering a good question.
Excellent loop great editing
Loved this
The 2nd one is because Jury Nullificatuon can get u scott free unfairly and thats one thing, but a Jury getting u an unfair guilty verdict is way worse, so the Judge can overturn a guilty verdict if it seems like this is happening
I was told judges don't like tears in court because it looks like manipulation
I love Judge Judy too ☺️
it is because a judge cant override a not guilty verdict jury nullification is possible
No. Jury nullification would be possible even if judges could override not guilty verdicts
@@kpro8908 While technically it would be jury nullification, it would defeat the point of even having a jury, if an acquittal could be overruled.
The whole point of a jury is to be a check and balance on the legal professionals and the judicial system. Having acquittals be final, is what gives a jury their power. Both for acquitting the innocent, and acquitting when they don't agree with the criminal charges.
If your lawyer is good enough he fills the holes manipulate popular opinion winning the case
If a jury can rule with emotion a judge can do the same thing
He's got a photo of judge Judy, I respect that.
In germany there isnt a real jury system. Capital crimes are tried by 3 Judges, 2 citizens, the DA, the defence and sometimes a, or more joint plaintiffs, the 2 civilians are there to assist the judge in finding a verdict. But the last word has the primary judge, he also has to justify his verdict and tell why he decided like that at the end of the trial.
Mike. Can ya do a vid on Jury Nullification?
I love this guy 😂
That was actually a plot point of the Dinosaurs sitcom. First the Main character got a huge settlement by the big evil company, than the big evil company got a huge settlement from the main character, then the judge got fed up and ordered them to put all back to normal. I didn't know this was actually according to American law.
"More reasonable amount". In other words, bench tort reform. You sue your employer, you prove malice and your case, the jury awards you, the judge drops your award, the lawyers still get their massive cut and you walk away with a fraction of your just award because politics.
The judge Judy picture 😂
Love your phone case Mr. Mike, good PR
There's also a judge declaring a mistrial with or without prejudice after the delivery of a guilty verdict, something that Schroeder threatened to do in the rittenhouse matter, due to the DA basically violating Kyle's 5th amendment rights... what a knob!!!
Anyone noticed "call me when you want" playing in bg?
The judge can do whatever he wants the jury can do whatever they want it's called jury nullification it means you don't have to listen to anything you can be free to determine s decision not listen to a single thing and vote how you want we're free
I had a speeding ticket. Plead not guilty. Cop didn’t show up. Judge asked the cops in the back of the room why he wasn’t there.
They informed him that he was having a child that day. The Judge stated and I quote. “ Oh, That’s right. He was telling me that at the BBQ. Where’s my Cigar?” They party together! How are you going to get a fair trial?
Which I asked “ where’s my Cigar? I just won.
The Judge then stated he could reschedule the case to make sure the officer was there. Asked me if I’d like that?
He stated case dismissed.
3 months later my insurance increased. When I inquired as to why, the insurance adjuster informed me I had been convicted for speeding.
He suspended all fines but nailed me for talking
what they don't tell u. is most states have limit. so even if u win 5 million limit is 1 million. so behind closed doors u get told this after u expect the 5.
Never heard of a judge ruling anyone innocent, strange thing for a lawyer to say. There is a difference between not guilty and innocent.
So essentially they deny you of a fair trial. There is no fair trial with an organization for profit not following common law constitutional law.
How do judges differentiate between unemotional and emotional bias on the juries part?
Nice vid ❤❤❤
You’re first
@@error_code7443 What I was gonna say😂
@@cleverwashere lol
@@cleverwashere 😂
Sweet gavel transition.
Now I gotta look up jnov
If the judge claims the defendant is corrupt and says outright that if the jury doesnt enter a guilty verdict, that he can overturn that, and this is all said on tape, in an interview about the trial, while it is happening. Would his JNOV ruling stand? Asking for a friend ;)
Judge Judy picture in back
*Checks comments*
I never wanted to be a lawyer because of all the times in my life justice just never happened - like my mother killing my dad and nothing happened to her or when a lawyer didn't show up to my court date and I lost my house, homeless and tired.
However! Your videos make it seem fun to learn and to understand. Thanks. ....also is there any chance of a conviction thirty years no body only one child witness...or is it only likely if she confesses?
You know you have rights
Let's talk about jury nullification and the power of grand juries.
JNoV for Derek Chauvin
Where i live theirs no jury lol. According to the Thai constitution the Judges decision ultimately comes from the mind of the king. So we don't have a jury.
Always wanted to ask, so case can be dismissed with prejudice meaning it can never be filed in court again. In theory, could a judge dismiss a multiple murder charges with prejudice?
The loop is crazy
I thought it was called a Judgement as a matter of law per Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
JMOL happens during a trial, when the Defence is about to start their case-in-chief, they can make request for JMOL before doing so if they believe that the side with the burden of proof has not met their required burden of proof, therefore the defence doesn't need to prove anything cuz the Plaintiff/Prosecution did not meet burden.
JNOV happens after the trial's conclusion after the verdict has been reached, as the defence has fears that the jury acted with emotions and without reason and has convicted the defendant without bothering with the evidence that would show reasonable doubt if shown to a reasonable person.
Aka just dont make it that you have to go to court, ever.
Because the jury & judge won't save us.
That transition went harder than I was ready for
Also there's just straight up the law's limits :P As we witnessed firsthand in the AH vs JD trials the punitive damages were set way higher than the legal limit so the judge overturned the amount the jury demanded and awarded the maximum awardable punitive damages instead.
Tell that to the hundreds of innocent people in jail and prison. Even the ones who after 20 plus years are not guilty…
Bruv can you do a video on what could happen if you accidentally spilled something on like the mona lisa?
On a real note, a judge can’t just ignore a jury’s verdict without good reason. If he/she does, the prosecutor will file a complaint with the higher authority, and they investigate and punish accordingly. There have been plenty of times where judges have been reprimanded because they were did something wrong. Once a judge yelled at one of the people attending jury selection and they got fucked for it. The suspect got a retrial and I think the judge got fired or something.
TLDR: GL trying to bribe a judge and get away with it.
So those movies where the jury who have had their loved ones threatened and say the obviously innocent guy was super guilty of the murder… that could be overturned in a finger snap by a judge? That’s cool!
Courts don't ever find people innocent though... right? It's guilty or not guilty.
Correct. Because finding people innocent is proving a negative, and you can't do it. Your options are guilty or not guilty.
do a video about jury nullification
Imagine being tried by a group of ignorant and cognitively flawed people. I hate this world
Those transitions were clean
And if you think your judge corruptly changed the verdict you can appeal it. Even a judge's ruling is not absolute.
I need saul goddman
This lawyer is so damn good
I can burn my ex’s car down and he will prove me innocent 🤣
The fourth arm of government, the jury. Jury nullification, when the three branches of government fail the public, jury nullification.
Very closely related is a “directed verdict”
A procedural device whereby the decision in a case is taken out of the hands of the jury by the judge.
A verdict is generally directed in a jury trial where there is no other possible conclusion because the side with the Burden of Proof has not offered sufficient evidence to establish a Prima Facie case.
A directed verdict is provided for by federal and state rules of Civil Procedure. In a criminal action, an acquittal may be directed in favor of a defendant, based upon rules of Criminal Procedure
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
directed verdict
n. a verdict by a jury based on the specific direction by a trial judge that they must bring in that verdict because one of the parties has not proved his/her/its case as a matter of law (failed to present credible testimony on some key element of the claim or of the defense). A judge in a criminal case may direct a verdict of acquittal on the basis the prosecution has not proved its case, but the judge may not direct a verdict of guilty, since that would deprive the accused of the constitutional right to a jury trial. (See: judgment, verdict, element, acquittal, jury trial)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
directed verdict a verdict ordered by a court preventing the matter being considered by the jury, the matter being determined by law rather than fact.
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
What happens if a judge goes against a reasonable jury verdict? Can they be removed from their bench somehow like a lawyer being disbarred?
Judges are fools and juries are monsters.
Indeed
So if and only if a judge knows based on the lack of evidence or the current evidence at hand, that a man cannot be prosecuted to such a severe degree so he has the right to amend or "change" the jury's verdict to a more suitable punishment for the"crime"? Is this what your saying?
was jamming to montero then realized i missed half the video
What are some examples of a Judge overturning a guilty verdict?
Mike can keep you from getting in jail for life alright.
You are about the heat 2 million subscribers you got this
Can you please do a video on jury nullification?
Lovely transitions ❤
The justice system is the biggest joke I ever seen.