Howard Bashman and Instapundit both have thoughtful pieces on jury nullification as a result of the Ninth Circuit's recent decision on the issue of whether a grand jury must be told that even if they find probable cause that a person has committed a crime, they do not have to indict the person. (Note: The majority opinion did not have a good ending, from our point of view-- we liked the dissent.)

Like Instapundit, we also give a "thumbs up" to Clay Conrad's book, titled Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine.

Update: Since Howard and Professor Reynolds don't quite agree on the subject, we thought we'd weigh in.

Howard says, "Jury nullification is something our system endures because there's no other alternative, but it's not something to be encouraged. "

The Professor says,

"... As unfolding scandals in every big city illustrate, murder of innocents, planting of evidence, and perjury by police officers - all winked at by prosecutors who depend on the cooperation of police - is rampant. *696[ FN41] Such abuses can no longer be described as the occasional errant behavior of a few bad apples; they are systemic and deeply embedded. At the same time, many crimes go unpunished, even untried, in those same cities - and there is a suspicious correlation between the wealth and fame of defendants and the likelihood that they will escape prosecution."

"Given that the current criminal justice system is failing both at convicting the guilty and at protecting the innocent, perhaps it is time for a significant change. Reempowering the jury, through both appropriately couched nullification instructions and other structural mechanisms, is likely to improve the situation considerably. "

We side with the Professor on this one.

Update #2: Professor Eugene Volkh has now weighed in on the topic. He has concerns about how jury nullifcation would work in practice.