So this Substack is actually mostly a podcast. I recorded an episode of the Thomson/Reuters legal podcast, “The Hearing,” and to be honest, had some doubts when I agreed to do so, because Big Media isn’t what it used to be. But it turned out beautifully.
There’s an Apple Podcasts link here, and a Spotify link here. And to my delight, the teaser for the episode broke out the class warfare point I’ve made in my The Judiciary’s Class Warfare book, which the hosts seemed to find fascinating as well. They seemed quite receptive to my points (see about 4:00 in) and in particular to the class warfare angle.
In fact, even if you’re not interested in juries, criminal law, or fighting tyranny, it’s worth listening to in part simply as an example of the kind of open discussion that used to be more common. I listened to this on the way home from a board meeting of the Institute for American Civics as the Baker School of politics at the University of Tennessee, where we were talking about trying to restart civil discussion. I wish there were more media like this.
For some earlier work of mine on this subject, see this review of Clay Conrad’s excellent book, Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine. Also this on overcriminalization and political prosecutions.
I enjoyed this so much I almost want to think about starting up podcasts again. I’m not sure I’m eager to get so involved in the production side again, though I’m pretty sure it’s gotten much easier than in the old, roll-your-own days of The Glenn and Helen Show. Share your thoughts on this, and anything else here, in the comments.
I enjoyed the Glenn and Helen Show and I would like it if you started podcasting again.
I believe that as the law is seen as more unfair with all the prosecutions of conservatives in many districts, jury nullification will increase just as it did in racist districts. If I were ever put on a jury that involved legal double jeopardy where the feds get a crack at you after acquittal in a state court I would vote to acquit on principle.
Phony double jeopardy excuses are laughable. Either being tried for the same crime is unconstitutional or it's not. Is being re-tried double jeopardy? Apparently not. So since the law is generally stacked against the defendant (the human ham sandwich) the jury (people) have/has to be able to acquit.
I would also vote to acquit if the person didn't get a speedy trial like many of the J6 people. I would also vote to acquit in any speech case. So when I'm called in early November to my county court for jury duty I'm not sure I'll be picked - but you never know.
It was/is disgraceful that dishonest holders of law degrees moved to disbar lawyers who worked with Trump and other conservatives.