Doing the Right Thing, Part 2 | America's Unwritten Constitution with Akhil Reed Amar

Doing the Right Thing, Part 2 | America's Unwritten Constitution with Akhil Reed Amar

by Akhil Reed Amar

Humanities, Social Sciences & Thought Law & Justice LNFCriminal law: procedure and offencesLNFYJury trials
🎙 Akhil Reed Amar 👥 1.8M 📅 August 3, 2026 ⏱ 26 min 👁 10 📄 lecture 🧭 2026-08-04
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

jury nullificationpious perjuryEmmett Tilldouble jeopardyunanimity

Summary

In this lecture, Akhil Reed Amar explores the power of juries to acquit against the evidence, a practice known as jury nullification. He traces its historical roots from Bushel’s Case in 1670 and the Zenger trial in 1735, through Blackstone’s concept of ‘pious perjury’ in English law. Amar explains that this power is enshrined in American legal doctrine, as judges cannot direct a verdict in criminal cases, and double jeopardy prevents retrial after an acquittal. He acknowledges the dual nature of this power, citing the noble use in Zenger’s case and the disgraceful acquittal of Emmett Till’s murderers. Amar argues that jurors should be informed of this right, akin to Miranda warnings, and suggests reforms such as ensuring juries reflect the diversity of America and reconsidering unanimity requirements. He also discusses the role of judicial conscience, referencing Justices Brennan and Marshall’s stance on the death penalty and Scalia’s ‘fainthearted originalist’ view on flogging. The lecture concludes by proposing that jury service should reconnect citizens with the Constitution and their civic duties.

171 words

Critical Evaluation

The lecture provides a comprehensive and nuanced examination of jury nullification, a topic often misunderstood. Amar’s argument is well-structured, moving from historical foundations to contemporary implications. He effectively uses case law and historical examples to illustrate the power’s evolution and its potential for both good and ill. The discussion of ‘pious perjury’ is particularly insightful, highlighting the moral complexity of jury decisions. Amar’s proposal to inform jurors about nullification is controversial but well-argued, drawing parallels to Miranda rights. He also addresses practical concerns, such as jury diversity and unanimity, offering a balanced perspective. The lecture’s strength lies in its scholarly rigor and the authority of the speaker, a Yale professor and constitutional expert. However, it is an opinion piece rather than a peer-reviewed study, and some may disagree with Amar’s normative claims. The content is accurate and well-sourced, referencing historical cases and legal doctrines. The lecture is part of a broader course, and viewers would benefit from prior context. Overall, it is a valuable resource for understanding the role of conscience in the legal system.

175 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content, focusing on the moral and legal aspects of jury nullification as part of the unwritten constitution.

Quality & Reliability

8/10

The lecture is delivered by a renowned constitutional scholar, Akhil Reed Amar, and is part of a Yale University course. The content is well-structured, historically grounded, and presents a balanced view of jury nullification, including its noble history and potential abuses. The arguments are supported by legal doctrine and historical cases, though the lecture is an opinion piece rather than a peer-reviewed study.

Chapters

Cited Sources

Concurring Sources

  • Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine — Cato Institute article discussing the history and legal status of jury nullification, supporting Amar's historical account.

Dissenting Sources

Contribution & Novelties

This lecture offers a scholarly yet accessible analysis of jury nullification, a topic often overlooked in public discourse. Amar’s unique contribution is his argument that jurors should be explicitly informed of this power, a proposal that challenges conventional legal practice. He also connects jury nullification to broader themes of constitutional interpretation and civic engagement.

Pour aller plus loin :

128 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores in information quantity, quality, and reliability, with a slightly lower technical level, indicating a lecture that is rich in content and well-supported but accessible to a general audience.

Reliability 8/10