Search a title or topic

Over 20 million podcasts, powered by 

Player FM logo
Artwork

Content provided by Thomson Reuters. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Thomson Reuters or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

EP. 159 – Jury nullification in the US (Glenn Reynolds, University of Tennessee College of Law)

41:34
 
Share
 

Manage episode 440203684 series 2323138
Content provided by Thomson Reuters. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Thomson Reuters or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.
Imagine you are a juror in a criminal trial. The evidence is overwhelming that the defendant is guilty. But you can’t shake the feeling that it would be unjust to convict. Maybe you don’t believe what the defendant did should be treated as a crime. Or maybe you simply believe the defendant deserves mercy. Can you vote to acquit, or must you vote according to the evidence?
It turns out that, in the US and the UK, jurors do have the power to acquit, even if they believe a defendant committed the charged crime. This is known as jury nullification.
In this episode, host Janelle Wrigley chats with Professor Glenn Reynolds from the University of Tennessee College of Law. They discuss the history of jury nullification in the US, the role of the jury, and the debate on whether jurors should be told they have the power to nullify if they believe a conviction would be unjust.
  continue reading

173 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 440203684 series 2323138
Content provided by Thomson Reuters. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Thomson Reuters or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.
Imagine you are a juror in a criminal trial. The evidence is overwhelming that the defendant is guilty. But you can’t shake the feeling that it would be unjust to convict. Maybe you don’t believe what the defendant did should be treated as a crime. Or maybe you simply believe the defendant deserves mercy. Can you vote to acquit, or must you vote according to the evidence?
It turns out that, in the US and the UK, jurors do have the power to acquit, even if they believe a defendant committed the charged crime. This is known as jury nullification.
In this episode, host Janelle Wrigley chats with Professor Glenn Reynolds from the University of Tennessee College of Law. They discuss the history of jury nullification in the US, the role of the jury, and the debate on whether jurors should be told they have the power to nullify if they believe a conviction would be unjust.
  continue reading

173 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Listen to this show while you explore
Play