Explore jury nullification, the little-known power that lets jurors ignore the law and acquit anyway

Explore state-level data on juries.

All states did not require a unanimous jury verdict to convict until a 2020 Supreme Court case

In Ramos v. Louisiana, the court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict in criminal cases, overturning laws in Louisiana and Oregon that had allowed convictions with only 10 of 12 jurors in agreement.

A 1986 Supreme Court ruling prohibited race-based jury strikes, but racial imbalance in jury selection persists

Batson v. Kentucky banned prosecutors from excluding jurors on the basis of race, but critics say it backfired. Prosecutors often use race-neutral pretexts to remove potential jurors that judges rarely reject, and some courts have never found a violation of the ruling.

Black Americans were systematically excluded from juries for much of US history

Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even explicit laws kept Black Americans off juries until well into the 20th century. The Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 mandated that federal juries reflect a fair cross-section of the community, though racial disparities in jury selection persist.

A Mississippi man was tried six times for the same crime, each time before an all-white or nearly all-white jury

This podcast investigates how prosecutor Doug Evans systematically struck Black jurors across decades of cases. The team built a database of every jury strike Evans made over 20 years, uncovering a racial pattern that was later cited by the Supreme Court when it overturned Curtis Flowers' conviction in 2019.

Grand juries were once considered a formality, but that may no longer be the case

New York's former chief judge famously said a prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," showing how rarely a grand jury refused. However, recent cases in which prosecutors failed to secure an indictment during the second Trump administration are challenging that assumption.

A TV show put one unsuspecting man on a fake jury surrounded entirely by actors for three weeks.

In the Amazon comedy "Jury Duty," Ronald Gladden believed he was participating in a documentary about the judicial process, unaware that everyone involved with the entire trial was an actor. In this podcast, Gladden and director Jake Szymanski reflect on the experience.

The roots of American law and the jury system trace back to medieval England

King Henry II established a jury of 12 local knights to settle land disputes in the 12th century, and his judges developed national laws common to everyone. American courts inherited this "common law" tradition directly from the English system.

Trial by jury was an important source of colonial resistance to British rule

Colonial juries refused to convict Americans who violated British trade laws, and Britain's response, stripping away jury rights, became a central grievance of the Revolution. The Declaration of Independence explicitly cited the denial of the right to trial by jury as a charge against King George III.

Federal juries are selected from voter rolls and driver's license lists

Courts randomly draw prospective jurors from these sources, then mail qualification questionnaires. Those who qualify may be summoned for voir dire, where judges and attorneys question candidates before seating a final jury.

Grand juries investigate crimes and decide whether the government has enough evidence to charge someone

Unlike trial juries, which determine guilt, grand juries decide whether there is probable cause to bring charges at all. If they find enough evidence, they issue a formal indictment. Federal grand juries are enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Go inside a real jury room as 12 Americans deliberate a criminal case.

This PBS "Frontline" documentary from 1986 was the first to film actual jury deliberations on American television, capturing a Wisconsin criminal trial jury wrestling with the evidence and the case's consequences.

The Supreme Court extended the ban on discriminatory jury strikes to include gender in 1994

In J.E.B. v. Alabama, the court ruled 6-3 that using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on sex violates the Equal Protection Clause, building on its 1986 Batson decision banning race-based strikes.

True crime content can influence the justice system

The 2014 podcast "Serial" inspired national doubt about the outcome and quality of a 1999 Baltimore murder case, resulting in overturned convictions (that were then reinstated). The series "In the Dark," whose second season pored over the murder trials of a Black Mississippi man, revealed crucial testimony was recanted, provided evidence of racial discrimination in jury selection, and was cited in case filings.

Read the criteria for federal jury selection and the exemptions and excuses that can get you out of it.

Federal jurors must be US citizens, at least 18 years old, proficient in English, and free of felony convictions. Active-duty military, full-time police and firefighters, and certain public officials are fully exempt from service.

In 41 states, older Americans can opt out of jury duty, but not in federal court

As of 2024, 41 states offer age-based exemptions from state jury duty, with opt-out ages ranging from 65 in Mississippi and South Carolina to 80 in five states. None of these exemptions applies to federal court.

The vast majority of federal criminal cases never reach a jury.

In fiscal year 2022, nearly 90% of federal defendants pleaded guilty, and another 8% had their cases dismissed. This means just 2% went to trial at all, making a trial by jury a rare outcome in the modern federal court system.

'Saturday Night Live' parodied the jury selection process in 2025

This "SNL" sketch lampoons the lengths people go to avoid jury duty, with prospective jurors claiming that a Kardashian hit them with a car, that they are from the future and already know the verdict, and that they should be the judge instead.

Hear from the casting director who assembled the entirely fake jury for 'Jury Duty'

Casting director Susie Ferris breaks down how she built the show's ensemble from scratch, from combing through early audition tapes to persuading James Marsden to play a heightened version of himself alongside unknowing juror Ronald Gladden.

A court designed to be the least powerful branch of government became one of the most influential institutions in America.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases

Ratified in 1791, this amendment applies to cases where more than $20 is at stake—an amount that has never been adjusted for inflation.

Juror pay varies widely by state, and most employers are not required to cover it.

State court juror pay ranges from nothing in Illinois and South Carolina to $50 per day in six states, with a national average of around $22 per day. Only eight states and DC require employers to provide paid time off during jury service.

Voir dire is the process that determines who actually sits on a jury

Meaning "to speak the truth" in French, voir dire is the questioning of prospective jurors by a judge or attorney to assess their impartiality and suitability for service. Those deemed unfit are excused before a final jury is seated.

In the SEC vs. Jarkesy ruling of 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to seek civil penalties for securities fraud in-house, which significantly scaled back the agency's enforcement capabilities.

Can courts end partisan gerrymandering?

This podcast explored whether courts can rein in partisan map-drawing, focusing on North Carolina's 2023 redistricting battle, the Moore v. Harper case, and the controversial "independent state legislature" theory.

Marshall used deft political maneuvering to increase the court's power in Marbury v. Madison

This podcast explores how Chief Justice John Marshall avoided a direct clash with President Jefferson by denying William Marbury his commission—while simultaneously declaring that courts can strike down unconstitutional laws—cementing judicial review, and expanding the Supreme Court's authority.

In the US, any court can rule on constitutionality—unlike in most other countries

In the American system, known as diffuse judicial review, federal and state courts at every level may assess whether laws comply with the Constitution, and their decisions are ultimately reviewable by the Supreme Court. Many other democracies, by contrast, reserve constitutional review to specialized constitutional courts.

Explore how free speech and justice coexist and sometimes clash

From the abolition of slavery to South African apartheid, this podcast explores how censorship has historically been used to suppress racial justice movements—and to promote them—and asks whether free speech is a foundation for, or a threat to, equality.

The nullification crisis tested whether states could defy federal law

In the 1830s, South Carolina declared federal tariffs void within its borders. President Andrew Jackson threatened military force, Congress passed a compromise tariff, and the episode ended with federal authority prevailing over state nullification.

An adultery and poisoning case examined whether federal treaty power supersedes state law

This Radiolab podcast unpacks Bond v. United States, where a local love-triangle assault became a federal case under an international treaty—forcing the Supreme Court to confront a founding question: How far can federal power reach into crimes traditionally handled by the states?

A 1954 Supreme Court ruling helped quiz shows avoid regulation

When the Federal Communications Committee attempted to rein in giveaway shows, the Supreme Court ruled that quiz shows were not a form of gambling because contestants did not have to risk anything to participate. Some believe that the ruling prevented proper oversight of the industry as it became more popular.

A single 1803 Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, gave courts the power to strike down acts of Congress.

Explore the nearly 1,000 laws, regulations, and provisions the court has held unconstitutional since Marbury v. Madison

Over more than two centuries, the Supreme Court has struck down nearly 1,000 federal, state, and local measures—exercising its authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution and shaping civil rights, the separation of powers, and the scope of government authority.

Explore the history and origins of the power of the pardon

The concept of clemency dates back to at least ancient Greece and was later embraced by English monarchs. During the Constitutional Convention, the founders debated whether presidents should have such power—ultimately adopting Alexander Hamilton's expansive view that presidential pardons serve as a check on the justice system.

A 1960s effort came close to abolishing the Electoral College

This podcast episode examines the closest attempts in US history to eliminate the Electoral College, focusing on a major 1960s reform push—and why, despite broad support, it ultimately failed.

The Fifth Amendment covers a wide range of legal protections for those accused of a crime

While it is widely known for the right against self-incrimination, the Fifth Amendment also protects against being charged for the same crime twice, requires grand jury indictments for serious crimes, and mandates compensation when the government takes private property for public use.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and legal counsel

The amendment guarantees robust protections for those accused of crimes. However, states weren't required to provide attorneys for defendants who couldn't afford one until the Supreme Court's 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright ruling—172 years after ratification.

The 'Howl' obscenity trial changed American publishing

The "Howl" obscenity trial is one of the most significant in American publishing, affirming that material with the "slightest redeeming social importance" cannot be considered "obscene." In the process, it permits artists, like Allen Ginsberg, to use the language they see fit to express themselves.

Read Thoreau's 'Civil Disobedience'

The essay—originally delivered as a lecture and inspired by a night in jail for failing to pay a poll tax—argued that citizens should nonviolently resist unjust government policies, including slavery. Read the entirety of the essay for free.

This American Life explored Ohio's gerrymandering battle

In 2022, Ohio lawmakers repeatedly drew congressional districts that the state Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. This defiance violated a voter-approved reform intended to prohibit partisan gerrymandering.

Listen to scholars debate abolishing the Electoral College

In this 2016 podcast episode, Harvard's Alex Keyssar and UVA's James Ceaser debate why the Electoral College was created, how parties reshaped it, and what reforms—national popular vote, runoffs, district allocation—could replace it.

Hip-hop lyrics are often used in criminal trials in a controversial practice that blurs the line between art and evidence.

Take a deep dive into the constitutional foundations of judicial review

In this episode of "This Constitution," the hosts take a law-focused approach to judicial review—examining its roots in Article III and the supremacy clause, its development through Marbury v. Madison, and the ongoing constitutional debates about whether the court's power strengthens or strains American democracy.

How algorithmic redistricting works

Computational methods are convincing a number of judges that some state district maps are drawn illegally. Here's a simple overview of how it works.

Sometimes, an award isn't given for a category

When the Pulitzers decided not to issue a 2021 award for editorial cartooning, it was surprising, but not unheard of. In fact, the same thing happened in 2012, when the Pulitzer board ignored the jury's recommendations for the fiction prize.

Photography and video are prohibited in the Supreme Court—but artists are not

Because cameras are banned inside the Supreme Court of the United States, courtroom artists document proceedings through sketches. This exhibition features works from 1964 to today, capturing the human drama of landmark cases and shaping how Americans visualize justice.

The true power of being a medieval fool

The stereotypical image of a court jester – their jagged, jingling tunics, donkey-eared hoods, and exaggerated expressions – belies their influence and power in medieval European courts. Jesters mocked their masters and communities through performances that could include witty ripostes, musical instruments, dance, juggling, and more. This gallery offers commentary on the fool’s role and power during the Middle Ages.

Explore important free-speech cases with a First Amendment litigator

Hosted by Ken White, the "Make No Law" podcast explores landmark First Amendment cases—from student speech to defamation—breaking down complex legal battles in an accessible way for lawyers and nonlawyers alike.

See some of the most controversial pardons in presidential history

From Lincoln's selective commutations of Dakota men after an 1862 uprising, to Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon after Watergate, and Bill Clinton's final-day clemency decisions, pardons have long sparked fierce debate over justice, political favoritism, and presidential power.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes championed the idea of speech as a 'marketplace of ideas'

In his landmark dissent in Abrams v. United States, Justice Holmes argued that the best way to combat harmful ideas is through open competition—a principle that became foundational to modern First Amendment law.