TLC_012: JURY NULLIFICATION

06/08/13 • -1 min

1 Listener

In This Episode:

I pull back the curtain on Jury Nullification. Jury nullification occurs when a jury acquits a defendant even though they believe the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This can happen when they believe the law itself is unjust or it would be unjust to apply it in this particular case.

While nullification is a powerful and awesome power, it is not codified in the law and jurors are never instructed that they have this power. In fact, lawyers are not allowed to openly ask jurors to nullify.

However, once a “Not Guilty” verdict is entered, short of a claim of jury misconduct, the court will never inquire into the WHY of that verdict. The 5^th Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy means that this verdict is sacrosanct and it is the final judgment. This makes nullification one of the most mysterious yet powerful principles in our criminal justice system.

Learn the historical basis for this principle as well as a potential real life recent examples of when a jury may have engaged in this practice.

TRIAL LAWYER MENTOR Quick Tip:

I offer a quick introduction to the concept of “seeding” your speech or persuasive presentation in order to compel your audience to act without coming right out and asking them to act.

LAWYERS and LAW STUDENTS:

Click here to sign up for our free newsletter where I share in depth tips and strategies for mastering the Art of the Jury Trial.

Download AUDIO here (MP3)

In This Episode:

Learn the historical basis for this principle as well as a potential real life recent examples of when a jury may have engaged in this practice.

TRIAL LAWYER MENTOR Quick Tip:

I offer a quick introduction to the concept of “seeding” your speech or persuasive presentation in order to compel your audience to act without coming right out and asking them to act.

LAWYERS and LAW STUDENTS:

Click here to sign up for our free newsletter where I share in depth tips and strategies for mastering the Art of the Jury Trial.

Download AUDIO here (MP3)

Previous Episode

TLC_011: THE DEATH PENALTY

1 Recommendations

In This Episode:

I pull back the curtain on the Death Penalty. I discuss what makes a person eligible for the death penalty versus life with the possibility of parole. I also explain my multi-layered opposition to the Death Penalty and how, regardless of one’s belief in the righteousness of the penalty, one has to consider the disparate ways it is currently enforced. There is a difference between thinking a person deserves to die for the crime he has committed and believing that the Government has the right to kill them.

In the podcast I reference TWO men who most legal scholars believe have been wrongfully executed: Carlos De Luna and Cameron Todd Willingham. To read more about Carlos De Luna, click here for an extensive review of the evidence prepared by Columbia Law School professor James Liebman and his team of law students.

To read more about Cameron Todd Willnghmam, click here for an extensive discussion of the case published in the New Yorker Magazine written by David Grann. Also, there is a movement afoot to gain a posthumous pardon for Mr. Willingham, click here, to read more about that legal battle.

TRIAL LAWYER MENTOR Quick Tip:

I offer tips on how not to bore jurors and your audience to death when you need to cite statistics in your presentation or case.

LAWYERS and LAW STUDENTS:

Click here to sign up for our free newsletter that offering in depth tips and strategies for mastering the Art of the Jury Trial.

Download AUDIO here (MP3)

Next Episode

TLC_013: PLEA BARGAINS

1 Recommendations

In This Episode:

I pull back the curtain on Plea Bargains. Justice Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court wrote, “Criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials.” Justice Scalia wrote, “We accept plea bargaining because many believe that without it, our long and expensive process of criminal trial could not sustain the burden imposed on it, and our system of criminal justice would grind to a halt.”

Plea bargaining seems to be vilified by both sides of the political spectrum. Those who favor mass incarceration feel that criminals should be punished to the fullest extent of the law and not given lesser sentences on the basis of judicial expediency. Those who fear the number of innocent people coerced into pleading guilty feel that prosecutors should not be able to threaten life sentences in order to procure pleas in weak cases.

The Supreme Court has dealt with the issue sparingly. There are pros and cons to plea bargaining and the system is fraught with great potential for unfairness and unequal treatment, but there seems to be no viable alternative to its existence. Hear the pros and cons in this episode and lest you believe that you would never be coerced into pleading guilty to something you did not actually do, check out a recent study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Authors Lucian E. Dervan and Vaness Edkins found that more than 50% of college students in the study who were falsely accused of cheating wound up admitting guilt anyway in return for a perceived benefit.