In a recent op-ed, Glenn Reynolds made the case for jury nullification. My co-blogger Ilya Somin was at least partially persuaded. I wasn't, and here's why.

Legal scholar Glenn Reynolds offers a strong defense of a practice I was once inclined to oppose. The case for jury nullification is also bolstered by the vast scope of modern criminal law.

Jury nullification is a power that the jury has to acquit a defendant, despite the law, if they believe a law to be unjust. It has been used for centuries to squash government overreach. In the 1800s, ...

Jury nullification happens when a jury decides not to convict a defendant who they believe has broken the law. It can be used for a number of different reasons. here.

I've been writing a fair amount about the right and nullification efforts of late, but after having my hat handed to me by Jonathan Adler yesterday, it occurred. IE 11 is not supported.

To be consistent, the nullification principle should also allow juries to disregard legal defenses, such as the insanity defense, if they disagree with those defenses. Skip to Main Content.

Yet nullification occupies an odd position in the legal system. The defense is not allowed to encourage a jury to nullify a case, and the jury is required to follow the evidence and the law.

What unites all of these threads—nullifying Supreme Court rulings, Congress self-nullifying, and Nullification Classic, at the state level—is a remarkable backlash against the federal ...