The Law You Won't Be Told
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 02. 2014
- Support Grey's Videos: / cgpgrey
Special thanks:
McSteed TV: / mcsteedinc
Scott Weinberg: michigancriminallawyerspc.com
@ryannamba
tfpauly
Martin Fixman
Yhson44
Gidister
Tom Jefferson
Lisa Lyons
@thesteveewin
Chris Vogt
Sebastián Andreas Margery Monge
Jordan Hunter Jackson
Nary Weis
Dan Lapsley
Audrius Zujus
Ian Holliday
Chris Farquhar
Becca Rickwood
Sean Murphy @seanbob4444 on twitter!
Nicholas Hartikainen
Timothy LaDuca
ESKN
Racketen
Don C Ludtke @donludtke
Alex Quinn
Colby Patterson
Jordan Hunter Jackson
Richard Williams
@simoneconnola
Clay Compton
Alex (NegativeZer0) Perelgut
If I get trialed for advocating jury nullification, the jury in my trial would learn about it and perhaps if I'm sympathetic enough they'd also nullify the law and let me free.
Yeah, don't count on it, Snoopy.
@@trombone113 1
Oh hell yeah! That's brilliant! What an excellent idea!The best catch-22 EVER!!! It's so parabolical, it's almost DIABOLICAL!!!!!
In all seriousness, can someone explain why wouldn't this work?
@@squid_cake It wouldn't go to a trial, definitely not by jury.
'Simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a Jury'.
*Clicks play button*
And that's why I watched this video.
WHO HAS TIME TO GET UP, LISTEN TO PEOPLE ARGUE FOR A COUPLE HOURS, THEN DECIDE WHO WAS RIGHT?
Liz Debate judges
*I am the law*
kemboy323 shut the fuck up😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 dude way too funny
*LAW*
I watch this on an annual basis to ensure I'm not selected for jury duty
It's time
“Ever Heard of a little thing called jury nullification?” - Saul Goodman
*hand gesture*
The illuminatus trilogy.
Probably my favourite work of fiction.
Unless......
Operation mindfuck is real.
“So I understand that courts have their own n word”
N*ll
Let them know that people are owned by that which they can't talk name
🅱️ullification😂😂😂🤣🤣😂
woodlefoof2 if you have 50% Native American blood by dna certificate you’ll never be called to jury duty!
i have to serve on a jury so i stopped the video, but i might just say that, if anyone asks *ThE eNtIrE gRoUp Of JuRoRs* if we have any questions...😈
"Watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury"
I see no downside
you will still be called for repeatedly just to wait a couple hours and then be rejected and put back on the shortish list of people who haven't been on a jury
What's wrong with serving on a jury?
@@sandygehrmann6309 Do you have hours upon hours of time to throw away for some dude who did something semi-trivial? If you do, there is nothing wrong.
@@holctomaz2562 I don't, but I find it interesting to see how the legal process works, and they do pay quite well for jury duty in my city. Btw, I meant no offence by the question - no need to get aggressive :)
@@sandygehrmann6309 I see your point and understand why you would be interested. Sorry if i came off as agressive.
Can't wait to get called for jury duty and say the phrase "jury nullification, bottom text"
Later at your contempt of court trial: "My client only did it for the memes, Your honour"
Write down and pass it around just watch out for cameras🐱
@@ThatGuyNicho based
@@ThatGuyNicho The Jury: "wait what's the crime that was committed?"
Prosecutor: "uhhh we can't tell you"
*lips pressed against mic" I was radicalized by memes, your honor!
My dad’s a lawyer and he’s a big believer in jury nullification, “the officer has the discretion to issue a warning or a ticket, the prosecutor can choose to prosecute or not, the jury (who is in the constitution) has the discretion to convict or not”
Judge: "does the jury find them innocent or guilty?"
Jury: "yes."
and that's why they should ask if you're a programmer.
Pretentious Asshole I also live in yes town
♥Ms. PikaShiba156♥ i'm a fan of Yes as well
*mathematician
This would probably return false in a programming environment unless the first condition is true, as the second only only says "guilty".
Ha, boolean logic!
Jury: "We find the defendant, not guilty"
Prosecutor: "But the defendant admitted guilt while in custody!"
Jury: "Well we disagree with the defendant."
It's more of "well, we disagree that what the defendant admitted to is a crime." It actually happens sometimes in murder cases. The defendant claims self-defense, but the way things went down don't meet the legal criteria for lawful use of deadly force. But the jury is sympathetic that the defendant wasn't acting maliciously, so they vote to acquit.
"But the defendant admitted guilt while in custody." I HOPE the jury has heard about the Reid interrogation technique, which is widely used in the U.S. and is designed to extract confessions-false or not. The assumption of the Reid technique is that the guy you arrested is definitely guilty. So to the cops who use it, it's morally justified to get a confession by any means, even intense psychological pressure and a nonstop stream of lies. The problem is, sometimes the suspect isn't guilty. Too bad: the technique is so finely honed that he usually confesses anyway.
There are many documentaries that show that admitted guilt doesn't mean they're guilty, they almost torture them to get a confession and in part that's why there are so many plea bargain because they don't let them free beforehand.
Yeah, it's like for instance, the reason the accusating side for a, say, racism-related crime will try to keep anyone they suspect might be a racist out of the jury. Because he could think the accused did indeed commit the crime, but he's fine with him doing that and will try to keep him from being punished.
@@---cr8nw Worth pointing out that this is still nullification, even if the jury doesn't know the phrase 'jury nullification'. They're disagreeing that the legal criteria for lawful use of deadly force is a good law in this case.
I remember once my teacher was talking about a time he was in a jury for a burglary trial. A man allegedly robbed a jewellery story of 30K worth of diamonds and was facing court. The thing is, the entire jury team felt sorry for the man because he had a family and was struggling. The jury all decided to simply deem him not guilty out of pity and so the man was released. Teacher didn’t know about nullification. All he did was practice it.
Should have jailed him
@@tonypringles2285 🤨
@@tonypringles2285 Yea. A crime is a crime
@Jon When he told the story the whole class just asked a thousand and a half questions before the bell rang.
@@igustibagusananda7706 ok capitalist
I remember hearing how, after duels were banned/criminalized in Britain’s “Canadian” colonies, jurors would refuse to convict someone for engaging in a duel, if they felt the duel had been conducted “fair and square”.
Honestly if the duel had been between consenting adults, had been conducted "fair and square" and they hadn't put anyone else at risk through their actions I wouldn't convict either.
"...but be warned; simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury."
7 years later, can confirm. I have never been picked.
There's an extra watchlist only for this video. Everyone who watches it is on the list.
I paused so idk whether to watch it or not
@@siquod 🤣🤣🤣
@@siquod considering that there are 12 million views and most of them are coming from the US I think that to be not unlikely.
I just wrote in the margin that i've got a bachelor of science and am an extremely analytical person, and that they'd be wasting time and money having me come in. It's kinda douchey but I know this sort of thing is the opposite of an ideal jury for the lawyers. Havent been called back since.
"simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury"
Oh noooo
Don't tell meeeee
That'd be the woooorst
Space dandy is the best
Why is every comment about people not wanting to be in the jury? Isn't it voluntary in America? Can you be forced to serve in the jury? That sounds like a terrible system
Yes, you can be forced to! It's called Jury Duty, not Jury Volunteering. Your employer is required to give you time off to serve, and the court pays you for your time. Basically if you're a citizen and you're residing in the states, you might get a letter saying you have to come in to court to serve duty on a jury. They actually call many more people than they need for a 12 person jury, and then they pick the 12 people that both sides can agree on. It's sort of necessary in a country that gives every citizen the right to trial by a jury of your peers -- there's no way you could get enough jurors to support that just by asking nicely!
@@exantiuse497 it is forced but they pay but this pay varies by country jurisdiction etc. In america this pay is next to nothing, especially because it doesn't really scale with the trial length in days.
Oh nooooo my finger slipped an i am learning all about this thing
"Be warned, simply watching may prevent you from ever being on a jury."
12 million people:
I have always wanted to serve on a jury but, when asked exactly that question in voir dire, my response has always been that every reasonable person would circumvent the law if it went against their ethical/moral concerns, which is the foundation of the law.
well said
The thing is, nullification can potentially work the other way too. While a jury could theoretically acquit someone because they believe that the law they've been charged with breaking is unjust, they could also convict someone just because they think that they look a bit dodgy or something
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz Can we charge a politician with breach of promise?
@@scottmalchow3428 If a politician promised to do something really bad then I'd actually be quite happy for them not to keep that promise!
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz I fell like I am experiencing deja vu...like that was discussed during the video, or something.
The first rule of jury nullification is: You do not talk about jury nullification.
The second rule of jury nullification is: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT JURY NULLIFICATION.
You just did it twice
So jury nullification is fight club? ;P
the third rule of jury nullification: If you really really really think the law is completely stupid and Donald Trump made that law.........
YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT JURY NULLIFICATION!!!!!
ah I do love Fight Club references.
Presidents don't make laws.
Thanks for getting me out of jury duty.
It was easier for me - just living in a country that doesn't have one. I don't really get the reason behind it anyway. What do people know about laws when not studying it?
+Lugmillord Hence the reason why US court is often referred to as theater. It is just as, if not more important to play on the emotional biases of the jury, as it is making your case. This is why machiavellianism is such an infamous trait of lawyers.
He warned you.
+themurmeli88 did you know the original meaning of court was to dance and play. which is why we know them as courts today. in the old days it was alot more bullshit in terms of "fair" trials. and it was just back and forth "dancing" persay
Karl cos Hmmm, well it sounds fitting.
Sooo I was called for Jury Duty in an affluent area of Southern California. Right before starting the Jury Questionaire, the judge explained Jury Nullification to us, and explained why we shouldn’t do it, and said “Now that you all know about it, you can’t use it as an excuse.”
Word’s gotten out…
Oh but the jury can use it. It is their right. The jury has no obligation here to listen to the judge.
@@vcool He didn't say we can't nullify the law (though he said we shouldn't). He said we can't use it *as an excuse*, an excuse being "excused from jury duty".
@@ErzengelDesLichtes Tbh even if you answer perfectly truthfully that you intend to apply the verdict according to the law, and you know nothing about jury nullification, I would still expect a large percentage of people when confronted with a crime that was 'technically' against the law but which they perceived as completely justified would still say not guilty. So jury nullification probably goes on a decent amount just without getting much press, the fact you know about it probably doesn't alter how likely you are to do it very much. The only advantage to knowing about it is knowing that you can't get in trouble for doing it, which would maybe put off a few people, especially if the judge goes heavy on emphasising they have to give a verdict based on the law and only the law.
So, the thing about it supposedly being against those questions that people ask you before you're on the jury. Since nullification exists as a consequence of the law, it is based strictly on the law, and therefore if you answer that you are fine making decisions purely based on the law, you are not lying. Nullification is part of the law, just unintentional.
For anyone wanting to use this info to get out of jury duty, you don't go in yelling "jury nullification!". They will likely charge you with contempt for that (because you are essentially saying that you will attempt to poison the jury). Instead, all you have to say is ""I won't say someone is guilty if I think it is an unjust law that they have broken, even if it is obvious that they committed the crime." The judge will know exactly what you mean, and they will dismiss you with no further questions.
The only reason to say that would be to get out of jury duty. If you feel strong enough about it to refuse to convict then you feel strongly enough about it to keep your mouth shut, it would be your duty to see an unjust law set aside since it is supposed to be a JUSTICE system.
@@edwardgoodson7628 thats. PERJURY. Which is a CRIME.
Welp... Time to forget this when i eventually do get Jury Duty
@@theunholysmirk Power in politics does weird things to people. Even something as low-strung as jury duty.
You can just say "I might not agree with all laws in all circumstances" the others in the court will just think youre a hippy against laws, but the judge will know you mean nullification.
"Watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury"
*Doubles video speed*
ElBrandoTV
😂
ElBrandoTV no jury duty? Yes please!
No ×0.25 gives them more time to notice.
I'm going to start a viral email that posts this video across the whole planet :o)
Everyone share this video on every social media platform *including myspace*
3:03 In any trial which requires the jury to be unanimous, a single determined juror can hang the jury, causing a mistrial. Prosecutors might not want to spend the resources it would take to bring the defendant to court again, especially if they believe that the result will be another hung jury or even an acquittal. A single nullifying juror could be highly effective, for better or worse.
I have been the victim of crime more than once. When I give the details, I'm always QUICKLY excused from jury duty. Neither side wants me around! Just as well. The American judicial system FAILED me multiple times ALL my life. I have NO CONFIDENCE in it.
I Was going to close the video. But then he said "warning, this video may prevent you from ever doing jury duty."
I then watched it 3 times for good measure.
And commented a couple times for good measure
Can it prevent me from being drafted as well?
I hope so because from my brother’s experiences in basic courts it’s either quick or boring as HELL
When intelligent people stop serving on juries we end up with a broken system. How do you think we ended up where we are now? Because the intelligent people find a way to avoid jury duty.
666th like :)
Lawyer: "You are required by law to serve if you get chosen".
Me: "No thanks. I'm busy. Jury Nullification".
Lawyer: "Have a good day, sir."
Does that work, I got jury duty in 2 weeks. and you say that during voir dire right? not in "excuses" in the ejuror site that you type in.
You should not do it that way. The judge could hold that your behavior was deliberately disruptive and intended to poison the jury pool. Don't be STUPID. Ask to speak with the judge and prosecutor in private. The judge will likely ask whether you will nullify or whether you might based on the evidence presented at trial.
Okaythen001: So how did it (jury duty) go?
Didn't get picked
@@okaythen001 Win?
Darrell Brooks just dropped a hint he might inform the Jury about Jury Nullification the day before the closing arguments were supposed to start in the Christmas Parade trial in Wisconsin. The judge, who has been very patient with him considering how he has acted in court, about flipped out and told him under no circumstances is he to discuss Jury Nullification with the jury in his closing arguments.
In this case, though, he is just trying to get the jury to let him off because "he didn't intend to kill 6 people and injure 60+." He did tell jury about it anyway and he was still found guilty on all charges. He didn't want to take responsibility....murder beyond a doubt(crime was on video and had many witnesses)
doesn't compare to a man stealing to feed his family. IMO
"This video may prevent you from ever serving on Jury"
What a tragedy. Oh no
I once answered “yes” and then was asked to explain why, so without telling a full courtroom of possible jurors what jury nullification is i had to explain to the judge what jury nullification is. I haven’t received another jury notice since, its been 5 years.
Thy removed the other potential jurors??
The whole system is a mafia criminal system.
@@OurFreeSociety yes really when you think about it. It is only a group of people that came together and made a set of rules that nobody but them agreed too that is no different than the the other group of people that came together and made their own rules without consulting anyone about them. Show me the difference. One just seems to have air of authority to it and the other is a group of lawyers 😂 yeah but i always thought what makes a government different from a gang and i realised it was the suit and ties alone that seperate them
I had to fill out a very long questionnaire when I was called to potentially be a juror in a class-action involving Microsoft. In the comments at the end, I said that I support the concept of jury nullification. Not that I intended to do it, just that I support it. They also asked my opinion of Bill Gates. I think Microsoft is garbage and Bill Gates is a crook for his predatory business practices, no matter how much he poses as a philanthropist now. I answered that honestly but politely and have not received a summons for jury duty since, over a decade, now.
@@randystegemann9990 No place for the truth!
@@Isochest Truth is a three-edged sword.
Yo i just wanted to sit down and watch some youtube and now i've potentially implicated myself in just 4 minutes
Welcome to Grey, this is what he does
@@dr_mafarioyt4313 yup also give you useless useful knowledge
4 minutes? More like less than 30 seconds.
@@banan4990 porI
Lmao.
I'm sure they're not worried about you, bub.
These animated pictograms when discussing law are such a welcome relief. When I was young I decided to go to medical school rather than law school because of the latter's absence of picture books!
as a great man in court once said to the jury in WKUK - " wouldn't it be crazy if despite all the clear evidence, you still came with a not guilty verdict"
Rest in Peace Trevor Moore
It would be crazy, they'd probably make a movie about it and want to interview everyone on the jury.
"Watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury"
*_8,576,874 views_*
Edit: Man, i even forgot i made this comment, just one thing, this is just a funny haha please dont overthink the joke.
Thank godness i deactivated comment notifications.
I think at that point the view already counted in though..
8.7M***
It won't get you out of jury duty, just out of actually serving on a jury. You'll spend your time in the assembly hall, or repeatedly being called as a prospective juror and then rejected.
Even if they had stopped watching as soon as they heard those words, the view count would be unaffected though, it would have still counted as a view.
Not everyone watching the video is living in a country, that has juries.
Life hack for avoiding jury duty: "I recuse myself from jury duty on the grounds that I'm aware of jury nullification and the statistical probability that jurors with such knowledge give biased verdicts."
In New Zealand a young man murdered his entire family. he was convicted and sent to jail. Over the coming years he ran a massive propaganda campaign framing his murdered father for the crime. finally he was given a retrial, new evidence emerged that collaborated the original conviction. never mind he just ran his defense ignoring that and continued to slur his fathers name. No evidence supported the father being the killer, but the doubt was set because under NZ law, dead people cannot be defended in court. The jury set the young man free then immediately rushed to his side and... hugged him. Impartiality.
yay for legal systems, a game where he who rigs best, wins.
Bel Rick I know of a disgusting story of a creep who stole from his boss, and when confronted he sued her, won and then burned down the business.
@@user-xx7pg3vw9k Its a tragedy for sure.
@@TheBelrick Which is why a jury of unskilled people is a bad idea. Having it in the 1800s was another thing, as only select few (white men) could get jury duty, and the idea was to protect these white men from everyone else (whom they had wronged, each women, child and person of colour).
@@TheBelrick Corroborated, not collaborated.
I got a jury summons years ago and simply told them that I was usually the defendant in most cases and might be a little prejudiced. I also told them about my lawyer at one point sharing proprietary information with the prosecutor and then her being appointed to a judgeship. I was dismissed and haven't been contacted again 20 years and not counting.
Everyone needs to take a moment to appreciate the fact CGP squeezes so much information into such a short amount of time, especially considering YT creators can make a lot more money when their videos are over 8 minutes long. A video like this would be SUPER easy to stretch out over 8 minutes simply by slowing it down. This person is literally choosing to earn less income for the same amount of work, simply for the sake of producing a higher quality product.
We need more content creators like this.
We don't need content creators willing to sacrifice money for quality, we need a way to make money and quality connected in a way that making higher-quality videos is the best play even if you're just in it for the money.
@@whirl3690 The issue with that is that quality is incredibly subjective.
Grey is an unique type of content creator here on CZcams. Rara Avis...
Aw yeah man I can't wait to go onto the jury and just yell
*N U L L. B O O Y A*
YES, DO IT
Suction cup man would totally do that if he knew about it.
The suction cup man is 10/10 with this comment
*B U L L. N O O Y A*
I mean he’s already been in court
Trial by combat, no other way makes sense.
+Travis7060312 The people? Judges? (scoffs) Kings!? Only the gods can decide justly and fairly.
+KarstenOkk No they can't, read any holy book and the gods give an unfair advantage to the one(s) they like the most, as does a king, a group of people and a judge. Even Yahweh kills children for making fun of baldness and the Greek and Egyptian gods are worse. At least it's clearly stated that Azathoth doesn't give two sheqels about the ordered universe.
Azurath100 How dare you question the just and true plans of the gods?
+Travis7060312 Trial by combat makes the least possible amount of sense. If you're a successfully violent criminal then trial by combat essentially lets you ignore the law which conflicts with the entire concept of law in the first place. /endbuzzkillingtonrant
+Travis7060312 Final Destination, Fox Only, No items.
In the most fitting way, I actually know about jury nullification due to a clip of Saul Goodman referencing it.
What episode
@@Carl_with_a_k_ Not an episode but a promo clip called "How to Do Your Job as a Juror"
"This may prevent you from ever serving on a jury again." I see this as an absolute win!
In a jury:
"Well, there's only two choices"
CGP Grey from a dark corner:
*Actually there's three*
BleueBrade actually there’s four
Aaron Long you can say not guilty and think guilty or you can say guilty and think not guilty
A choice has two/three/maybe more options. It's a choice. It isn't TWO choices. Americans haven't *_learned_* English. Instead they *_parrot_* it.
@@beachcomber2008 the word choice isn't dual. The word "choice" can be used instead of the word "option" in the right context (this is the right context). If you've studied latin or speak a latin dominated language then I understand the confusion since the word **"alter"** implies duality, an alternative. Also, I'm not American
beachcomber2008 in a casual context it can be used as either.
In New Hampshire, the right of jury nullification is now a required part of the judge's jury instruction. Paraphrase "If you believe the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt but you think that a guilty verdict would bring about an unjust result, you may find the defendant not guilty".
I love my state just a bit more now
Makes me like living in the state that everyone forgets even more now.
I've always thought it should be someone else than "not guilty". Maybe splitting it up into "not proven", "not guilty", or... something that basically means unpunished.
No, it isn't. They passed that law in 2012, but in 2014 the NH Supreme Court gutted it.
Wikipedia -> Jury Nullification -> State laws
+Pastlife17 Lol, you said, "It should be something other than 'not guilty.'" Then went on to say, "maybe something like 'not guilty...'" Contradictory?
I have never been asked to serve on a jury and I 100% believe I am on a list somewhere for watching this at various times.
Ok so let me get this straight…if I go into a trial yelling “ jury nullification “ and get arrested for contempt then take that case to a jury trial where I get to testify about how I yelled jury nullification then I essentially just tainted the entire jury and would have to pick a new jury and just get myself stuck in a catch 22…huh…this sounds like fun.
What if you could use this premeditated like you would have a shirt that said it on there or even like tatto it to your forehead so that when they give a description of you as the suspect they have to say the word and get the case thrown out that that way…
From what little I looked into this, it seems contempt of court in the US is the sole discretion of the Judge/Court and doesn't require a jury to enact or enforce (not legal advice).
@@starlacUK Correct.
Could you still request a jury trial?
Judge: "Why can't you serve as a juror?"
Me: "I can't tell you. If I did, I'd get arrested."
Judge: "Cool. See ya!"
Ben From Gulf City no, you would say I plead the 5th
Usa systeme of in no justice is as ill as can be, Bob Dylan Hurricane
The arrests are just for trying to convince jurors to nullify while a case is ongoing and they're often overturned on First Amendment grounds anyway.
a better one would have been
judge: why cant you serve as a juror?
me: I cant tell you. if I did, id get arrested
judge: ayyyyy
me: ayyyyyy
@@nimrodfilms5104 i don,t understand howe jury systeem works who says you be a jury member,not anny knolidge of law needet,ik heb geen idee hoe dat jurysysteem werkt.Hoe komt het tot stand,wie bepaalt dat?dat er een paar mensen met of zonder enig gebrek aan kennis van zaken. Besluiten of iemand ergens schuldig aan is. Kan iemand mij uitleggen hoe dat gaat ??
I feel like this was used in a case in Texas, where a man killed another who had sexually assaulted the first man's daughter. He did it, but the jury agreed it was justified.
Had nothing to do with nullification, had *everything* to do with the event being in TEXAS. If you want another example just look up Ron White and Texas Death Penalty.
Amen
.
All pedophiles should be put to death
I think @JOHN LARSEN is correct from this news snippet:
"Under the law in the state of Texas deadly force is authorized and justified in order to stop an aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault."
I got dismissed immediately by the judge once on nullification grounds.
The defendant had a previous felony record and was being charged with unlawful ownership of firearms. He’s completed his entire previous sentence and this was the only offense he was charged with. I happen to believe that if you’ve fully paid your debt to society, then ALL of your civil rights should be restored…including the right to bear arms.
So when the prosecutor asked me that question about my beliefs I said “he served his previous sentence right? Then he committed no crime and the State of California is wrong.”
Judge dismissed me on the spot.
Courts when the people selected to interpret the law interpret the law
also remember "shall not be infringed" on 2nd amendm
As long as the laws remain in place which allow for jury nullification then any decision you make as part of a jury is a decision based strictly on the law.
Wait, just watching this makes me void from serving jury duty???
ohhh nooooo i tooootally wanted to be on jury duty!!!!!!
oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
time off work though! i just got summoned yesterday... : (
So we call them, this is how it should go:
"Yes I received this jury court order."
"uh huh"
"I know what Jury Nullification is."
*Silence and then waiting music.*
"I'm sorry sir, you don't seem to be eligible."
"That's too bad."
I read a funny story about this guy who got summoned and he really didn't want to go. When it was his turn to answer the questions he asked if there was any chance the date could be postponed because there was a big White Power rally on the other coast that he was supposed to go. The lawyer of the afro-american plaintif dismissed him pretty quickly :-).
Well if you're an honest dude then you still can. Just give the courts no reason to suspect you may not be honest, especially if you are honest!
I just wear my "Justice: Regular or Extra Crispy?" T-shirt with the Electric Chair on it, and go in muttering "Lock 'em up and throw away the key! The reason we have so much crime today is because we always coddle the criminals! He wouldn't be here if he weren't guilty!"
I've been called many times, but never served a day in my life.
Third choice is Trial by Combat
Just like in Mechwarrior
I really like that you know that! I used to be all about Battletech. Pretty cool universe.
Fourth choice is taking the law into your own hands.
If you're referring to GoT, not anymore hehe
+IceAge actually it originated from the medieval period in England
Loved the reference to 12 Angry Men! I watched that movie in a Foundations of Law class, and I really enjoyed it. Not sure if I agreed with the jury’s verdict in the end, but it was certainly entertaining to watch them reach that decision.
That's actually one of my favourite parts of the story: the story was written in such a way that the viewer need not agree with the decision they come to. The story doesn't tell you if they were correct or not, and they come out with a few of the jurors still thinking he's guilty, so it's clearly up for interpretation. I think we need more stories like that, ones that force the viewer to come up with their own opinions instead of blindly following the protagonist
The fact that you can get arrested for informing people about their rights on a jury should tell you everything you need to know about our "justice" system. They don't want people knowing that their "laws" aren't decrees from the gods that no sane person would ever consider disobeying.
Those three dots after the two laws means therefore. I learned that in my advanced maths in my Cs program. Nice
learned this in 8th grace from a VERY nerdy teacher but it’s so helpful!
I learned it weirdly enough in Rhetoric
Does that mean Predator's laser weapon shoots "therefore" at people.
I learned it in 8th grade maths
We use it everyday in maths class from 7 or 6 onwards.
I demand trial by combat, my champion will be the judge himself
You would be held in contempt of court and locked up even longer.
I will PAY to see you try that.
Your wish is granted, but the judge is a demon lovechild of Chuck Norris and Vin Diesel.
You have to convince your champion to accept
taking ace attorney to a new level
I showed up for jury selection wearing a 'Death From Above' T-shirt, reading a Bow Hunting magazine. They sent me right home.
that's beutiful.
i will not speak about this EVER. mostly because i'll forget probably.
lozer on youtube you should share this with everyone to promote free speech.
This is so true
Can confirm, watched this video quite a while back and forgot what it was about.
thats a big mood
I can't forget about. Was called in for jury duty not long ago and discussed the subject with another potential juror. Not advocating it but I just mentioned it as a third option to the two that he mentioned. Though I would only use it if I thought someone were being unfairly treated (which is a rare case.)
Being arrested for knowledge sounds like suppression.
No technically your being arrested for lying to the court. But it is definitely suppression.
@@japr1223 How can you be lying to the court about jury nullification if the courts and lawyers don't ever bring up jury nullification? I can understand if they somehow prove you became a juror with the sole intent of nullifying the jury, but just the knowledge that jury nullification exists should not be grounds to prevent someone from serving on a jury. "You know too much about the law so therefore you can't be a juror" is kinda fucking dumb lmao.
@@virtualdreams7240 I didn't make the rules. Apparently they ask you before you're selected.
It sounds like suppression because it is lol
If I had a jury that Didn't know about jury nullification it WOULDN'T be a jury of my PEERS
"Simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a Jury"
I'm amazed you can say that out loud and not sound relieved.
As a lawyer, I think juries should be told the truth: That jurors are entitled determine both law and facts, and can't be punished for delivering a verdict the court agrees with. I think the CA voters should pass a measure requiring courts to tell jurors that they have a right to judge the law and practice jury nullification!👍
Gonna get a Null Booya shirt for my next yearly jury duty.
+1
Saaaaaaammmmmmmmeeeeeeee
+++
David Martin If you watched the video, you won't have jury duty.
"Hello, you have been chosen to serve a jury-"
"I once watched a CPG Grey video about nullification."
"..."
Gets arrested
@@user-de7gh1qp4g for typo
As a witness you are sworn in to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" as you know it. But the instant you sit down the lawyers do everything they can to get you to say ONLY the PARTS of the truth that they want to be heard. If you ask the judge " Please your Honor, will I be allowed to say what I was just sworn in to say without interuptions?", you will be declared a "hostile witness" & most likely be told "you may return to your seat" along with some form of "I am done with the witness". If you explain all this to the judge & lawyers the day you show up for jury duty, when they pick out who will be in the jury box or an alternate juror, you get excused from doing any jury duty & are sent home.
No matter what you are sworn in to do, you will never get the chance to "tell the whole truth", not ever.
i'm confused giving testimony as a witness and jury selection are totally different things
What if I just don't stop talking when giving testimony? Will they just straight up interrupt me?
@@Otome_chan311 probably
thank you, i have been summoned to serve jury duty, despite after stating my beliefs prejudice me and i can not be impartial, as well as having had a head injury that affects my short term memory from becoming long term. was trying to remember the word for an unconstitutional law, but this works.
i just know there are a great deal of unconstitutional laws i would like removed from the books
So if it's perjury, what happens when you're being tried for perjury and you must inform the jury of jury nullification?
MIND BLOWN!
Inception 2
Only one person was ever actually charged like that (Laura Kriho) and it was overturned on appeal because the appeal's court rightly realized that the only reason she was charged was because she had advocated for a not guilty verdict, had it been a guilty verdict nothing would have happened to her. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant because if it even seemed to be true it would have chilling effects on future jurors who would be afraid they would be investigated if they gave a controversial not guilty verdict.
The idea that someone can be convicted for perjury and not immediately struck down on appeal in this circumstance is theoretical.
EmperorPenguin has
Oh, loophole! 😂
Grey: *This video will prevent you from serving in a jury*
*loops video for 10 hours*
That's kinda racist
......how?
@@yellowblack4882 how
Racist against Greys, I guess...
Yellow Black how
I served on the grand jury once. there were some cases we asked the DA if there were greater charges we could bring, and some where we thought the arrest was because of the letter of the law but the intent wasn't being followed and dismissed. If ever asked to be on a jury again, that's how I'll explain my "yes" reasons.
So I emailed the juror office and I told them I'm not fit to be a juror because I believe in jury nullification just got to email back saying that does not disqualify me and I still have to show up?
4,235,843 of us are no longer able to serve on a jury.
I would probably forget that though as the question is so strange that you can't understand it
Your all probably too young anyway
Albino Peacock Sorry for my spelling mistake I was typing on my phone.
the views are from all over the world. we dont even have jouris in most of europe
Good its not like I wanted to be part of the Jury.
I WAS NEVER TAUGHT WHAT LAWS THERE ARE,
*I WAS NEVER TAUGHT WHAT LAWS THERE ARE*
Let me repeat - I was not taught the laws for the country I live in
But I know how Henry the VIII killed his women
Divorced beheaded died, divorced beheaded survived
Glad that’s in my head instead of financial advice
boyinaband lol
i wasnt taught how to get a job, but i can remember disecting a frog.
i wasnt taught how to pay tax, but i know loads about shakespears classics.
i was never taught how to vote, they devoted that time to defining isotopes.
i wasnt taught to look after my health, but mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell!
i never had a lesson on current events, insted i studied the old american west.
I was never taught what laws there are. I WAS NEVER TAUGHT WHAT LAWS THERE ARE!
Let me repeat! i was never taught the laws for the country i live in but i know how henry VII killed his women!
divorce, beheaded, died. divorce, beheaded, survived. glad thats in my head instead of financial advice!
i was shown the wavelengths of different hues of light, but i was never taught my human rights.
Apparently there’s 30! do you know them? I dont! why the hell cant we both recite them by rote?
I know igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks, yet i dont know squat about trading stocks,
or how money works at at all - where did it come from? How does the thing that motivates the world function?
not taught to budget or diperse my earnings, i was too busy there rehearsing cursive.
wasnt taught how much it costs to raise a kid or what an affidavit is, but i spent days on what the quadractic equation is!
Negative b plus or minus the square root of b squared minus 4ac over 2a.
Thats insane! that’s absolutely insane! they made me learn that over basic first aid, or how to recogniae the most deadly mental disorders,
or diseases with preventable causes, or how to buy a house with a mortgage, if i could afford it, cause abstract maths seems more important
than advice that would literally save thousands of lives! but its cool, cuz now i can tell you if the number of unnecessary deaths caused by that choice was prime. never taught present day practical medicines, but i was told what the ancient hippocratic method is.
I’ve got a headace the pain is ceaseless! what should i take? umm... maybe try some leeches?
can we discuss domestic abuse and get the facts, or how to help my depressed friend with their mental state
umm.. no, but learn mental maths, cause you wont have a calculator with you everyday!
they say its not the kids, the parents are the problem, well if you taught the kids to parent thats the problem solved then!
al this advice. about using a condom, but none for when you actually have a kid when you want one!
im only fluent in this language, for serious? the rest of the world speaks two, do you think im an idiot?
they chose the solar over the political system so like a typical citizen now i dont know what i’m voting on!
what polices exsit or how to make them change? Mais oui, je parle un peu de francais.
So at 18 i was expect to elect a representative, for a sytem i had never ever ever been presented with!
But i wont take it! ill tell everyone my childhood was wasted! ill share it everywhere how i was educated!
And insist the pointless things! Don’t Stay in School!
this took me like 30 minutes please like.
Markogames123 no you copy and pasted.
LMAO 😂😂😂😂
“Simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury”
12 million people: Sign me up!
This video got me dismissed from a jury because I smiled when the lawyer asked the roundabout question
"But be warned: simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury"
*Insert Homer "Woohoo" here*
Remember all his pairs of glasses?
Fr like how's this a warning, who WANTS to be on jury duty? Lmao
The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races.
@@ArchHippy Hah omg that was a great line, Homer can be so funny
I say we make a third choice: Thunderdome. Two men enter, one man leaves. e_e
dantespimp
Lol
More simpley: you may invoke trial by combat as a plea, but no champions and your opponent is fully armed police officer while you get nothing.
RadiusZero I love you.
RadiusZero i dont get it
They had that in medieval Britain, either the defendant and the prosecutor would fight or a representative of their choice, they believed a higher deity would spare the innocent one
Grey: Be warned, watching this video might mean you'll never serve on a jury
Me: reads the comments
I know that the "you can use it against unfair laws" seems appealing to make this popular but honestly-
by being on the internet for a while I can see a TON of juries involving rapists or murderers ending with "yeah but we like them so they are not guilty"...
*I may have trust issues(?*
Female rapists might never be convicted again
I think you forgot the whole premise of the law and the justice system. It's a way to discourage behaviours deemed problematic by society. If the same society decides that the particular situation that they are judging doesn't really qualify as undesirable behaviour, then they have the right to exercise that opinion by voting not to punish the defendant. It's as simple as that.
@@Pranav_Bhamidipati yeah....... *I don´t trust in their judgement neither*
@@maucazalv903 Well, then, I think you don't like democracy.
@@Pranav_Bhamidipati So does every Founding Father of the United States of America. None of them like democracy, not even the "democratic" ones like Madison and Jefferson (who thinks anyone who knows how to operate an industrial machine, who owns a factory, or even lives in a city does not deserve any rights)...
I know that in the state of Georgia, juries are REQUIRED to be instructed by the judge about jury nullification. Incidentally, it was due to jury nullification that Al Capone was never convicted of violating the Prohibition Act. The juries knew he had done it, but didn't think alcohol should have been illegal. As for the possibility of a third verdict, that exists in Scotland. There, the options are guilty, not guilty, and not proven. The difference between not guilty and not proven, is that with not proven, the charges can be reintroduced at a later date.
But in the US there's still a grand jury that can state there isn't proper evidence to have a trial, which is similar to not proven
"As long as courts are fair..." Well, that's an assumption, innit?
Mike, that word fair is not in any court.
Like trying to use a football at a baseball game.
My dad and i were attacked at sams club
They are still dancing around the courts and it happened in 2019
I forgot to re regester my truck last year on my dads bday I had a ticket in 19 days and was in court explaining in 25
As long as your life depends on the judge's mood that day and what he thinks about you
Courts can never be fair
@@ronloc3309 change judges to robot without emotion
I served on a jury where one of the jurors did actually vote not guilty because they did not want the person to be punished for one of the charges. So that charge ended up being a hung jury because none of us could come to an agreement.
I'll never be a on a jury.
So... In other words, if you're on a jury, ALWAYS yell NULLIFY in order to go home early. Good to know
Or make shure as long as not breaking any law in your way of finding loopholes such as yes to leagely go home instead of surving on the jury.
@@shorelockhomes943 sure*
When I had jury duty. I did whatever it took to drag the process on.
Sitting on my ass getting paid to do jury duty is easier than my regular day job
Sop Lim You must be paid didley squat in your regular job.
Tomaz ... I’m on $100,000 plus a year working underground in mines, in central Australia.
It’s hard work. Jury duty is easier than my regular job
CGP Grey: Be warned, simply watching this video may prevent you from ever serving on a jury
Me, law student from The Netherlands where there is no jury system: Oh no, what a nightmare!
In India they abolished the jury system after a jury nullification(of 8:1 not guilty) and later convicted the person.
Yeah, alot easier for politicians to get judges to do what they want here.
As a french person I entirely relate to this
@@RK-cj4oc high profile cases dont have a jury anyway nor they have a saying in the interpretation of the law
@@alice_in_wonderland42 oh wow we had one, interesting I didn't know this.
"Simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury"
12 million people: Mhm, continue.
"Simply watching may prevent you from serving on a jury."
Oh. No. How ever will I be able to be okay with this.
And now I will ALWAYS speak about Jury Nullification. Fuck the system.
3 edgy 5 me
Ow dude, I cut myself on that razor sharp edge.
"...the other 11 angry men..."
That reference tho
+Luyang Che That was a good movie
+Katy Gilday I agree
+Luyang Che
You mean Ocean's Twelve??
+aktan4ik Nop, 12 angry man, you should watch it ;)
Thomas Lacroix
ok!
He was never told what laws there are
boyinacell
Darrell Brooks brought me here.
"You may not be able to serve on a jury"
Oh no, how terrible.
Karen WILL serve on a jury. Do you want your fate decided by Karens?
@@noahsmith4505 Participating in the """justice""" system is such a typically Karen behavior
@@bograham6221 Maybe so but this is the system we have here and now
Jury nullification is pretty much the whole point of having a jury in the first place. This is why lawyers and Judges hate it as it was always about the people controlling justice not the courts. Judges in the US have way to much power via plea bargains despite jury nullification. Which is the real reason for so many coerced plea (overcharged cases) bargains by the way.
*too much
And it can work the other way too. While nullification makes it possible to acquit someone if you believe that the law they've broken is unjust, it also makes it possible to convict them if you think they look a bit dodgy or have any other such prejudices
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz They can still do that with a guilty/not guilty system. Person looks dodgy and they don't like him or feel the law is unjust then they can all agree to guilty or not. Having a nullification puts that power in the people and says to the court and the general law that "we don't agree". Can it be used for bad? Yes but again so can guilty and not guilty. I also think it's better to have 3 choices rather than 2 because.
@@nanajosh The other problem is who decides whether a law is 'unjust'? Because any law can seem unjust to someone with a particular mindset!
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz that's why juries are made of multiple people.
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz We, the people decide whether a law is "unjust". There's a reason why we cast votes in an election to pick people who'd make our laws. Moral inclination is the biggest driving factor, along with projected prosperity.
"Watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury"
*Laughs in judge system of courts*
"Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?" can be answered yes, and you could still engage in nullification, such that you might know about nullification, but find it wrong, until the case you are in went down and you changed your mind.
“Watching will likely stop you from ever getting on the jury ever”
I see this as an absolute win
@@henrycrabs3497 crab
@CrabApples Bodaciously Bitter Fruit's crab
@@IDontLikeHandIes crab
@@henrycrabs3497 dead crab
delicious dead crab
So informing them of your intent to practice jury nullification during the interview process should get you out of jury duty without actually breaking any laws? Good to know...
+Wells Why would you want get out of jury duty? I mean somebody's life is in your hand :V :V
+Nika Gogishvili Because you don't get paid for being on jury duty and often times your employer won't pay you in your absence. Some trials can take several weeks so you're effectively paying thousands of dollars for your time.
+ijirving you get paid for jury duty and your job cant punish you for it
bizzieone The amount you get paid is a joke. It isn't even minimum wage. *Up to* $50 per day (i.e. you could make even less), and only if you serve for 10 days or more.
+bizzieone Unless you live in one of the forty-nine states in the US which practice some form of at-will employment, where all your boss has to do is claim he's firing you for some other reason besides jury duty and you're 99% powerless to do anything about it.
Darrell Brooks watched this video.
Darrel brooks watched this and was like hey!!!
I'm a firm believer that just because something is ILLEGAL doesn't mean it is WRONG. So if someone breaks a law, but what they did is not WRONG or harmful to someone else or their property, there was no crime committed. And believe me, people are prosecuted for victim-less crimes more than anything else. It is absolutely your duty as a juror to declare that person not guilty even if there are 100 witnesses, DNA evidence, an HD video, and a signed confession proving he did it.
***** Well that one can make sense situationally. In that case the law is for your safety rather than others. If a deer runs out and you're going 105 Mph you are fucked.
Noah Madden But as consenting adults we have the right to make decisions about our safety as long as we're not putting anyone else in harms way
Yea I guess you're right
The only problem I have is some of the drug charges. Instead of locking them up in prison they should be rehabilitating them instead of locking them up away in cell for who knows how long. I don't understand how some of these drug addicts and sellers are getting longer times than murderers and rapists as those are worse crimes. Here wealth is power, look at the case of the teenage boy that killed 4 people while he was drunk and driving. The teen didn't get any jail time, he just got a slap on the wrist and went to rehabilitation. Now Texas is considering giving a teen 99 years because of selling drugs. I just don't understand this system.
Teen killed 4 people drunk and driving: www.democracynow.org/2014/2/7/affluenza_defense_lands_wealthy_teen_in
99 years: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-teenager-faces-up-to-99-years-in-jail-for-baking-and-selling-pot-brownies-9553747.html
***** How do you KNOW there's nobody else on the road?
To be honest, jury nullification in "not guilty" form is the exact point of having the jury in the first place - making sure the law doesn't work the wrong way in a situation it didn't account for.
No
Round-about question: Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?
Round-about answer: Currently no, (or yes) but, all beliefs are subject to change based on new information.
I think nullification is a very important option, and should not be punished or avoided. Imagine a small orphan boy, starving and sick, stealing a small loaf of bread from a plump baker. Was he guilty? Of course. But should he really be punished? He was only doing what he needed to survive. He needed it more than the baker, after all
By that same logic, a scary looking man with a tattoo tear next to their eye may be convicted even if they did not commit the crime, when they otherwise may have been let off
It goes both ways
@@podomuss I can’t tell what you’re advocating for. Your hypothetical has nothing to do with nullification. That situation happens all the time w just innocent and guilty
@@delusionaldonut1326 but it would happen more often if they were told about nullification
Jury nullification for marijuana charges
That's a belief that would prevent you from basing the verdict on the law tho
yes
+BOBONATOR2 exactly