In criminal cases, the rule against “double jeopardy” means the government can’t appeal a “not guilty” verdict. The defendant can still appeal a guilty verdict though.
It’s a consequence of how courts interpret this part of the US constitution. That provision was based on common law so i would imagine some other related legal systems might have something similar, at least historically.
In the context specifically of nullification, the CGP Grey video referenced by OP covers exactly this, but to summarize: the combination of that rule with another principle (that juries can’t be punished for their decisions) creates the concept of “nullification”. If the jury believes that a defendant is guilty but returns a “not guilty” verdict, the defendant walks and the jury can’t be held legally responsible either.
In criminal cases, the rule against “double jeopardy” means the government can’t appeal a “not guilty” verdict. The defendant can still appeal a guilty verdict though.
Interesting. Do you know why it is like that in the US and not in some other countries? Is it because the jury makes the decision?
It’s a consequence of how courts interpret this part of the US constitution. That provision was based on common law so i would imagine some other related legal systems might have something similar, at least historically.
In the context specifically of nullification, the CGP Grey video referenced by OP covers exactly this, but to summarize: the combination of that rule with another principle (that juries can’t be punished for their decisions) creates the concept of “nullification”. If the jury believes that a defendant is guilty but returns a “not guilty” verdict, the defendant walks and the jury can’t be held legally responsible either.