WEBVTT Kind: captions Language: en 00:00:00.180 --> 00:00:04.040 On a Jury you know your options: guilty, or not. But there's another choice that neither 00:00:04.040 --> 00:00:08.549 the judge nor the lawyers will tell you -- often because they're not allowed to and also it 00:00:08.549 --> 00:00:10.429 might better if you don't know. 00:00:10.429 --> 00:00:14.019 This video will tell you that third choice, but be warned: simply watching may prevent 00:00:14.019 --> 00:00:18.080 you from ever serving on a jury -- so this is your last chance to hit the pause button 00:00:18.080 --> 00:00:19.610 before you learn about... 00:00:19.610 --> 00:00:23.740 Jury nullification: when the defendant is 100% beyond-a-reasonable-doubt guilty but 00:00:23.740 --> 00:00:28.960 the jurors also think he shouldn't be punished. The jury can nullify the law and let him go free. 00:00:28.960 --> 00:00:33.040 But before your on your next jury and yell 'Null! Booya!' at the judge you should know 00:00:33.050 --> 00:00:37.860 that just talking about jury nullification in the wrong circumstances can get you arrested. 00:00:37.860 --> 00:00:42.230 Though a video such as this one, simply acknowledging the existence of jury nullification and 00:00:42.230 --> 00:00:45.989 in no way advocating it is totally OK. And, while we're at it: 00:00:45.989 --> 00:00:49.109 (CGP Grey is not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, it is meant for entertainment purposes only. 00:00:49.109 --> 00:00:52.800 Seriously, guy, don't do anything in a court of law based on what an Internet Video told you. No joke.) 00:00:52.809 --> 00:00:57.340 So why can't you do this? It's because nullification isn't in the law , but exists as a logical 00:00:57.340 --> 00:00:59.239 consequence of two other laws: 00:00:59.239 --> 00:01:02.819 First: that juries can't be punished for a wrong decision -- no matter the witnesses, 00:01:02.820 --> 00:01:07.940 DNA evidence or video proof show. That's the point of a jury: to be the decider. 00:01:07.940 --> 00:01:13.220 and, Second: when a defendant is found not-guilty, that defendant can't be tried again for the same crime. 00:01:13.220 --> 00:01:17.610 So there are only two stated options: guilty or not, it's just that jury nullification 00:01:17.610 --> 00:01:21.250 is when the words of the jurors don't match their thoughts -- for which they can't be 00:01:21.250 --> 00:01:24.320 punished and their not-guilty decision can't be changed. 00:01:24.320 --> 00:01:28.420 These laws are necessary for juries to exist within a fair system, but the logical consequence 00:01:28.420 --> 00:01:32.860 is... contentious -- lawyers and judges argue about jury nullification like physicists argue 00:01:32.860 --> 00:01:36.840 about quantum mechanics. Both are difficult to observe and the interpretation of both 00:01:36.840 --> 00:01:40.950 has a huge philosophical ramification for the subject as a whole. 00:01:40.950 --> 00:01:44.979 Is nullification the righteous will of the people or an anarchy of twelve or just how 00:01:44.979 --> 00:01:46.710 citizens judge their laws? 00:01:46.710 --> 00:01:50.900 The go-to example in favor of nullification is the fugitive slave law: when Northern juries 00:01:50.900 --> 00:01:53.330 refused to convict escaped slaves and set them free. 00:01:53.330 --> 00:01:54.350 Can't argue with that. 00:01:54.350 --> 00:01:59.119 But the anarchy side is Southern juries refusing to convict lynch mobs. Not humanity 00:01:59.120 --> 00:02:00.220 at its best. 00:02:00.220 --> 00:02:03.440 But both of these are juries nullifying the law. 00:02:03.450 --> 00:02:07.670 Also juries have two options where their thoughts may differ from their words. Jury 00:02:07.670 --> 00:02:12.370 nullification usually refers to the non-guilty version but juries can convict without evidence 00:02:12.370 --> 00:02:15.000 just as easily as they can acquit in spite of it. 00:02:15.000 --> 00:02:18.980 This is jury nullification too and the jurors are protected by the first rule, though the 00:02:18.980 --> 00:02:23.190 second doesn't apply and judges have the power to overrule a guilty verdict if they think 00:02:23.190 --> 00:02:27.530 the jurors are… nt the best. And, of course, a guilty defendant can appeal, at least for 00:02:27.530 --> 00:02:32.120 a little while. Which makes the guilty form of jury nullification weaker than the not-guilty 00:02:32.120 --> 00:02:33.510 kind. Cold comfort, though. 00:02:33.510 --> 00:02:37.230 Given the possibility of jurors who might ignore the law as written, it's not surprising 00:02:37.230 --> 00:02:41.420 when picking jurors for a trial, lawyers -- whose existence is dependent on an orderly society 00:02:41.420 --> 00:02:44.810 -- will ask about nullification, usually in the slightly roundabout way: 00:02:44.810 --> 00:02:47.569 "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly 00:02:47.569 --> 00:02:48.330 on the law?" 00:02:48.330 --> 00:02:52.239 If after learning about jury nullification you think it's a good idea: answer 'yes' and 00:02:52.239 --> 00:02:56.250 you'll be rejected, but answer 'no' with the intent to get on the jury to nullify and you've 00:02:56.250 --> 00:03:00.819 just committed perjury -- technically a federal crime -- which makes the optimal strategy 00:03:00.819 --> 00:03:02.709 once on a jury to zip it. 00:03:02.709 --> 00:03:07.030 But This introduces a problem for jurors who intend to nullify: telling the other 11 angry 00:03:07.030 --> 00:03:12.019 men about your position is risky, which makes nullification as a tool for fixing unjust 00:03:12.019 --> 00:03:13.650 laws nation wide problematic. 00:03:13.650 --> 00:03:17.629 (Not to mention about 95% of criminal charges in the United States never make it to trial 00:03:17.629 --> 00:03:20.879 and rather end in a plea bargain, but that's a story for another time.) 00:03:20.879 --> 00:03:24.629 The only question about jury nullification that may matter is if jurors should be told 00:03:24.629 --> 00:03:28.450 about it and the courts are near universal in their decision: 'no way'. 00:03:28.450 --> 00:03:32.409 Which, again, might seem self-interested -- courts depend on the law -- but there's evidence 00:03:32.409 --> 00:03:36.580 that telling jurors about nullification changes the way they vote by making evidence less 00:03:36.580 --> 00:03:41.349 relevant -- which isn't surprising: that's what nullification is. But mock trials also 00:03:41.349 --> 00:03:45.060 show sympathetic defendants get more non-guilty verdicts and unsympathetic defendants get 00:03:45.060 --> 00:03:48.870 more guilty verdicts in front of jurors who were explicitly told about nullification 00:03:48.870 --> 00:03:50.310 compared to those who weren't. 00:03:50.310 --> 00:03:54.409 Which sounds bad, but it also isn't difficult to imagine situations where jurors blindly 00:03:54.409 --> 00:03:57.080 following the law would be terribly unjust -- which is the heart of nullification: juries 00:03:57.080 --> 00:03:57.239 judge the law, not solely evidence. 00:03:57.239 --> 00:04:01.400 In the end righteous will of the people, or anarchy, or citizen lawmaking -- the system 00:04:01.400 --> 00:04:06.909 leaves you to decide -- but as long as courts are fair they require these rules, so jury 00:04:06.909 --> 00:04:13.909 nullification will always be with us.