The Law You Won’t Be Told

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

  1. You can’t be charged again for the same crime, unless they call it something else and try it in another jurisdiction.

  2. I remember hearing, in high school i think, that jury nullification was used in the past to stop racists from being punished for lynchings.

  3. The law you won't be told
    No tax agent can find the law you MUST pay FEDERAL income taxes as a civilian! You pay state taxes but no law says federal!

  4. guilty!Mr a beat up Mr b/Mr a go to jail for 1 year./Mr a: I ask what if I give 10000/Mr b:deal!dismiss the case.

  5. The "Law" is not the law, it is the "code" or "statute".
    Common law is the "Law" but not in use. It has been replaced by a proprietary system that you are not to know of, just as you are not to know Microsoft code because it is owned by Microsoft. "Our" "Law" is owned by the lawyers that take an oath of secrecy to the BAR and given a royal title of Esquire.
    If you say this doesn't make sense you are correct, but that doesn't make it untrue because you can't make this shít up.

  6. Wrong. You CAN be tried twice for the same crime… just not a Capitol crime. The law states you can not be put at risk of life twice for the same crime. This is obviously why you dont tell the judge to get bent after a ruling… that mofo can haul you back in. Look at the hoax case of Jussie Smollet. He wasnt up for a Capitol crime, so… mofo is getting his.

  7. I was called for jury duty a few times. Out of those called for selection before the trial. I was never selected to actually serve on a jury. Though, I have spoken to someone who has. As a juror if you know the person being convicted and even one juror thinks you are too biased. That juror can speak with the judge which will result in the biased jury member being dismissed. In theory, this could also be used by a mob of jurors to get the one jury member who votes differently removed. If you are going to serve on a jury, I highly recommend watching 12 angry men. This movie will give you tips on the differences between a good and bad jury member.

  8. This is talked about often on the show "The Real News with David Knight ". The law is often wrong and/or not applied rightly or universally and it is up to a jury to be the final and sovereign safeguard against tyranny and injustice

  9. The famous "I didn't know I couldn't do that" doesn't work either. Ignorance of the law is not a viable defense unfortunately. this can also get really scary because Congress sits around all day and makes laws that we don't even know about. Instead of editing our laws with the times they just keep adding and tacking stuff on

  10. legit question: if summoned for jury duty & asked about aforementioned beliefs as referenced in video, am i now seriously expected to say yes, i have a personal conflict & can't serve, due to what i learned in this video, & how it could possibly be a good solution in a particular case?

    also, if yes, then will i be required to state my reason why? if so, how do i do this without informing the entire potential jury pool of the idea of nullification?

  11. You should have seen how fast I clicked on this video when it said it would get me out of jury duty

  12. Why is this discouraged? What's wrong with saying: "I know that this is a pernicious and extreme punishment. However, I know the defendant is guilty." Its providing an explanation of why you believe the punishment needs to be nullified.

  13. In England and Wales, "conduct from which it may reasonably be concluded that the person intends to try the issue otherwise than on the basis of the evidence presented in the proceedings on the issue" is an offence (Juries Act 1974 s. 20C). Note though that this only talks about evidence, not law. If your conclusion is that the evidence shows the defendant should be acquitted regardless of what the law says, it's not this. Perhaps mentioning nullification during deliberations could be construed as contempt of court, but Bushell's Case (which in a historical curiosity involved William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania) established that actually nullifying is not.

  14. interesting. what if you got on a jury before you knew about this and then want to use this after finding out about it. is it still illegal?

  15. This should not come as a surprise to anyone with knowledge of how the founders established our government. When it is said that we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the jury system is one of the two times that we exercise that premise, the other time being in the voting booth. We elect representatives to legeslate the laws that govern our society, but when the legislature enacts laws that are unjust, it is the right of jurors to nullify that law when it is applied against our fellow citizens. Further, though a law may be just in it's regular application, the jury retains to itself the right to temper the application of that law by acquitting a defendant for certain mitigating circumstances of their guilt. In my opinion "nullification" in a sense is the incorrect description for a jury exercising their authority to ensure that our legal system is equitable as well as just. I do not believe that jurists should lightly take it upon themselves to rule contrary to law, but the constitutional principle of "trial by a jury of your peers", means to be tried by your fellow citizens or your equals. Who better to apply their sense of what constitutes justice in each specific case. It is the attorneys that have turned our legal system into a horse race between prosecutors and defense attorneys, thereby subverting justice for the poor while establishing a whole different legal standard for the wealthy.

  16. Is there any international law or anything of such kind by which citizens of a country can file a case against their country's government for various reasons?

  17. Faster way: Say you are from Chicago, and you've bought cops to get out of traffic tickets. Prosecuting attorneys don't like people who have a true understanding of how the world works, and question cop veracity. Cops lie, a lot.

  18. Haha, if their not paying me then I’m not doing it. And since this government is run of hypocrisy they can kiss my ass.

  19. What is there to stop a defense lawyer, or defendant from bringing up the subject of Jury Nullification?

  20. Nullification helped end slavery in the United States. But of course, don't tell jurors about it, amirite?

  21. This is the Law that every single human being will be summoned up on judgement day. Currently, Jesus Christ is serving in His office of Lawyer, take His services before you receive your notification to show up lest you will be found guilty:


    I  I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
    Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

    II Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
    Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
    And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

    III Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

    IV Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
    Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
    But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
    For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    V Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

    VI Thou shalt not murder.

    VII Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    VIII Thou shalt not steal.

    IX Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

    X Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

    Exodus 20:2-17 KJV

  22. Isn't it a law where if a judge hold you in contempt of court for such as jury nullificationthat that in itself is an illegal act because the judge is acting as judge jury and executioner without a jury of your peers therefore you are being sentenced in a illegal Manor

  23. I got selected last year. Fucking awful. When the attorneys and judge questioned me for the selection process I simply told them that I already thought the defendant was guilty and nothing could change my mind. I was swiftly released from jury duty.

  24. Well that just sounds like hipocrisy.
    Have a jury know the defendant is not-guilty but say guilty just because of what a man wrote on a paper some number of years ago, or the other way around? Even if judges have the power to overrule, they may agree with the false jurisdiction and abuse that power over the innocent. Juries can't save themselves without getting even in more trouble, geez.
    Definitely not fair justice, why does it exist?

  25. I served on jury duty where the defendant faced a 1st degree murder charge. The prosecutor gave us another option – find him guilty of 2nd degree murder AND guilty on another a 2nd indictable offence. BUT we all knew that being found guilty of 2nd degree murder in conjunction with another indictable offence translates into an automatic upgrade to 1st degree murder. The prosecutor was being sneaky. She never offered a plea deal either. Btw, the "victim" was a gangster drug dealing/pimp and during a drug deal gone bad he was trying to kill the defendant. The defendant was trying to defend himself. Yea, he shouldn't have placed himself in that situation but even so doesn't he have the right to save himself even during the course of a crime? Point is jurists can defy the judge and do as they please. Deliberations among jurists are kept secret – no different than how the Supreme Court refuses to provide reasoning behind their own decisions. We have the final say no matter how confusing our verdicts may seem. We are the judges with no less powers than a judge. Do as you see fit but uphold the oath.

  26. Sheriff who committed the crimes picks the jury; better get with America
    That’s not right ; why has the President not fixed the Sovereign immunity issues

  27. whoever made this video is a complete sucker, who will bend over for anyone who tells him what to do. dont wimp out

  28. U say you can be arrested for speaking about jury nullification but then dont back that claim up w any evidence at any point in the video.

  29. Anarchy comes from the Latin root 'archon' meaning ruler and the prefix 'an' meaning without. Anarchy literally means freedom. Man made laws are either redundant or immoral since natural law(moral law, karmic law, consequentialism) is higher. We need to eradicate government and the very idea of legitimacy of authority off the face of the Earth.

  30. Oh great I’m glad I know about this so I don’t ever go to do jury duty again in my life thank you so much I will tell them that I know about notification

  31. Best believe that if they want you guilty they have sit-ins with persuasive leadership qualities for the back room briefings they hold for jurors that are selected for being simpletons and followers

  32. Can you as a defendant shout out/notify people about the existence of jury nullification?
    I am from Europe but i am interested about this one.(we have different system here)

  33. All you have to do to end maritime law is plea contempt/sedition, accuse the judge of treason (he/she is guilty) and say the judge has no jurisdiction over and maritime law doesn't belong in a free country.
    If G hyphen D says it then it is true

  34. Ahhh…so this is how all the white folks get away with shit all the time. Of course they're guilty, but why punish them for it?

  35. Honestly, a jury may be most stupid part of the whole jurisdiction process. Like a punch of random people deciding your faith and even if they are biased, they won't get punished for their unfair ruling.

  36. Thanks for showing this & this likely explains how, innocent people can be & have been #FalselyConvictedThenImprisoned

  37. Not American so I'll just tell a loophole. Instead of mentioning nullification talk about the can't be punished for wrong decision and hope they figure Out the concept of nullification themselves

  38. It isn't a choice, it is a result. Based on your own statements in this video.
    You dont say null, it just happens.

  39. In Scotland we have third verdict it's called not proven, As far as I know we are the only country in the world that has it, everyone hates it, and people say it means, we know you did it but we can't prove it.

  40. But we don't live in a fair system. That would mean that the ruling class would be held accountable for the same crimes as "We The People" and we all know that is not true.

  41. 2:24 "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?"

    Since a large percentage of laws on the books are unconstitutional (certainly all laws dealing with money in US$ because Federal Reserve Notes are not constitutional money; a note is a promise to pay money to an identifiable payee at a certain time; so where is the money since a note is not money?), a prospective juror can make a judgment on whether a particular law is constitutional or not.

    Furthermore, as stated in the video, nullification has always been with us. Nullification played a large part in passage of the 21st Amendment, which overturned Prohibition (18th Amendment: production and sale of alcoholic beverages) when juries started to refuse to convict bootleggers, rum runners, etc.

  42. What about human rights laws that are currently being violated in Canada? Where is our legal system? There are things happening in this country and have been for a very long time that are against human rights laws and privacy laws. In fact the law doesn't truly exist in Toronto right now because many horrible things are happening and they won't even verbally explain. People's rights are constantly violated so the idea we have law and order in this country is an absolute joke. They won't even let victims have public voices or proper legal representation anymore, if they ever did.

  43. It's way too fast. Are you on speed? It seems like you never clearly explained it, just gave a whole lot of ramifications of it. Finally, at 2:13 in, the table seemed to explain it, except that how can anyone tell what the Jury was THINKING?! Has telepathy been proven?

  44. The easiest way to be excluded from a jury, is to walk in and say you were a victim of a pass crime, then look at the defendant in disgust. You'll be shown the door before the reporter can type your name.

  45. When in the presence of the lawyers asking you the question, you can use negative, distrusting, body language (fold arms, lean away, look away, cross ankles, do not face them squarely) to make you seem unreceptive and prejudiced against them personally and any arguments they will want you to accept during the trial. Will they reject you?

  46. When you are summon's to appear for jury duty an you want out of it, just yell out: Hang 'em! I ain't got time for this Shit! Nullify? Fuck's that?

  47. Depending on the crime you have been found not guilty of in this country you can be taken into a civil court and be found guilty by the preponderance of the evidence instead of guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt the double standard of so-called laws in the united states of corporations! Have a great day ahead!

  48. Sounds like a good idea to get out of jury duty if you have better things to do than pay more for parking and commissary or vending machine food drinks,not to mention getting felt up by rent a cop security guards.

  49. ”Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” -Preamble of the Declaration of Independence

  50. The not tried again for same crime is called double jeopardy and doesn't exist in every country for those that were wondering.

  51. Our current legal system is illegal to begin with. It's admiralty law. Which hijacked common law.
    So by definition, unless you steal or kill someone, you are not subject to any of today's "legal" statutes.
    God created man, man created government, government created laws.
    Man is above government, and therefore needs only to answer to God (common law – stealing, hurting or killing from another human).
    Traffic tickets, noise violations, public drinking, etc.. are all illegal laws designed to take your money (for profit).
    If you get charged with a crime, you can immediately counter this charge and become the defendant. Fill out the form and indicate that you wish to have the courts prove "they have jurisdiction".
    The courts don't have jurisdiction over you and the case stops dead in its tracks.
    Show up to court with a lawyer, and the judge sees you know nothing about the law (lawyers are proof that you need a babysitter and are ignorant of the law).
    In reality, you don't even need a driver's license to drive. These are all man made, for profit scams created by "the system".
    Which is why you need a citizen-ship. Because in admiralty lawz you are born on a ship. A citizen of that ship.
    When people get their citizenship, they are in fact officially becoming a slave lol
    Ignorance is no excuse. People need to do their homework.

Leave a Reply

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