Below is my column on campaigns on the left to enlist citizens in jury nullification. It is the latest assault on the integrity of our courts. Long supported by far-left law professors and pundits, it encourages potential jurors to disregard the evidence and the law in rendering a form of social justice.
Here is the column:
“You have this superpower.”
That statement from Qiana Johnson is part of reported training material for residents to engage in “jury nullification,” whereby jurors ignore the law and incriminating facts in a given case to nullify any prosecution.
Notably, Johnson is the newly elected clerk of Prince George’s County Circuit Court in the Maryland suburbs of Washington. She is part of a growing left-wing movement gaining traction with voters that calls for radical changes to the U.S. legal system.
The effort is to engineer “Twelve Angry Men” scenarios on real juries — but unlike in the movie, the jurors are actually being trained to ignore evidence and deliberations in favor of political outcomes.
In her election campaign for her current job, Johnson had to overcome questions about her own criminal record. But many voters are willing to give others a second chance when they show evidence of rehabilitation and contrition. The more immediate concern might be embracing a practice that is expressly barred by courts.
One such document allegedly declares, “You have this superpower, and that superpower is you are able to nullify that goddamn jury.”
Far-left professors have long advocated that juries use jury nullification. Georgetown Law professor and MSNBC legal analyst Paul Butler has long advocated that Black jurors engage in nullification in cases involving Black defendants. Butler wrote in the Washington Post in 2016: “Confronting the racial crisis in criminal justice, jury nullification gives jurors a special power to send the message that Black lives matter.”
The problem of biased jurors has long plagued the legal system. It can work both ways in ignoring the law to refuse or secure convictions. Past cases involving President Trump and other Republicans have raised bias concerns over the jury pool in cities such as Washington, D.C., and New York City.
But jury nullification is different; it is a direct assault on the very foundation of the American court system. The juror is the thumping heart of that system — a group of empowered citizens who swear to consider cases without prejudice or prejudgment.
It is not a crime to advocate jury nullification. Moreover, there are legitimate concerns raised by investigations into such groups. about chilling the rights of free speech and association. In my view, such advocacy is protected speech under the First Amendment.
But that is not always the case for lawyers, who can face professional consequences. Many courts bar lawyers from arguing for jury nullification. Calling for jury nullification can also present sanctionable conduct for lawyers in a given case.
Even if this is protected speech, voices in both parties need to denounce these efforts. It effectively encourages jurors to lie when they take their oath to follow the law and to shed any outside bias or prejudgment. It is an effort to enlist jurors in using cases to achieve political and social goals at the expense of the rule of law.
The professors and pundits supporting these campaigns are actively seeking a hostile takeover of the courts without explaining to these citizens the implications of such dishonesty. Indeed, Chairman James Comer has detailed how groups like Freedom Trainers are allegedly seeking to enlist potential jurors while, according to the committee, instructing trainees not to “signal the agenda.”
Instead of addressing the impact of politicizing our jurors, these groups are portraying nullification as “a powerful tool for ensuring fairness and justice.”
These efforts are coming at a time of full assault on our judicial system from the left. Leading Democrats are calling for the packing of the Supreme Court, to reverse decisions with which they disagree. Every leading Democratic candidate for the 2028 presidential nomination has now thrown the court to the baying mob.
Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is only the most recent, declaring, “We should seriously look at expanding the court while the Democrats are in power.”
From the trial jury to the Supreme Court, many on the left now seek to take control of institutions that have long been the rock of this Republic. If successful, justice will become merely an extension of politics.
What is so disconcerting is that there is no longer any pretense of principle. Law professors are demanding that pledges to pack the Court be used as litmus tests for politicians, and senators are calling for an instant liberal majority on the Court to carry out the “will of the people.”
Liberal professors have long demanded revolutionary change to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
The attack on the American jury may be the most insidious of these efforts. Our legal system invests average citizens with the power to do justice. Every community plays a role in upholding the principles of blind justice. As with court-packing, jury nullification is a previously odious practice now being portrayed as a noble cause. It is part of the conditioning of voters to accept foundational changes to our constitutional system, to further a radical agenda harmful to the nation.
The juror’s role was indeed a “superpower,” but not the one these professors and pundits are pushing. It is a power against prejudice and partisanship; it is the power of doing simple justice in a nation committed to the rule of law.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Once the authoritarian anti-constitutionalists have control of the judiciary how keen will they then be to allow for nullification of their laws? What holds a promise for them now becomes a thing detested and loathed. We should rightfully expect that what is tolerated now will be made unlawful then.
The legal system is reaping what it has sown. The system needs more jury nullification. Mr. Turley is dead wrong. How can individuals ignore the massive corruption, abuse of prosecutorial power, and overlapping “laws” that create a system that is, in fact, lawless? A better discussion would have called for stronger jury selection, prosecutorial reforms, and prosecutions of police abuse. Gesh—this is just a whine that “liberals” are attempting to misuse jury nullification, while fully ignoring the fact that it is Mr. Turley’s too-entrenched support of a legal system that is fully abusive by nature.
I could never properly serve on a jury because I’m always going to consider the circumstances over whatever the law says. A man kills his child’s molester? I don’t care what any law says, he did the right thing, the only thing a real father could do, and should be awarded, not convicted as an example. I’d never vote to convict even if there was live video in 4kHD and in 3D of him doing it.
Indeed. Those pushing jury nullification may just get what they arr asking for. Will they be happy then?
Nothing like the fiery brand of justice. Cold beer and pretzels too.
Hanging scene for Hang’em High
Face the fact that The Law is a Joke. A complete Joke. It no longer serves Justice! It’s been politicized to the point that our expectations, our respect and our willingness to obey is virtually nonexistent. So, ask yourself what results. What results is a complete breakdown of “the system.” We learn fast. We will respond by doing exactly the same from an opposite perspective. The state will prosecute Conservatives, Christians and others on the right. We will employ the tactics described in the article to stymie prosecution. Both sides will use the tactic and the system will shut down. Good! Legal chaos is preferable to the weaponization of the Jury. Ultimately we will all meet in the middle of Mainstreet and duke it out. Get ready!
What happens when we can no longer find twelve jurors willing to honor their oath, follow the law, and weigh the evidence? Some may lie to get on the jury. Others may not even understand their duty. It only takes one who refuses to do that duty to hang a jury. So we try again. And again.
At what point do we recognize that the problem isn’t the courts, but the citizens we’re drawing from?
I’ve been making the argument for some time that our constitutional republic requires citizens with the capacity for self-government. Some here ignore it. Others mock it.
Mock it all you want, but citizen formation is a real issue. And dismissing its importance might just be proving my point.
The Constitution can’t do its job if the people responsible for upholding it won’t do theirs.
I’ve been making the argument for some time… Really? We’re mocking you. Apparently you’re the only person in the USA who has capacity and formation. The rest of them are what?
Olly, I am genuinely curious. In your view what would a “properly formed” citizen look like in our pluralistic society?
You speak of “formation” in almost every issue. But who gets to decide who and how is a properly “formed” citizen?
How would the government or the courts have the power to test, grade, or certify a citizen’s “capacity for self-government”? Would potential jurors be required to prove they have been properly “formed”?
How would a court be able to determine if jury in a trial be a true random set of peers for a defendant?
So according to you the non-voters (because of age etc.) don’t participate are failing the Founders, the Constitution etc. Yet you’re blind to the fact that 200 million actively participate in democracy. So where do come up with this nonsense about capacity and formation and constantly bewail the downfall of the republic when 200 million particpate? Don’t bother responding.
OLLY,
It appears to be a real problem. People are more and more willing to bring in their political bias into something like law and order, the justice system. And it is not just some one off quacks. We have people like Roxane Gay (okay, a quack) who has called for “Free Luigi, for one.” in the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Her and people like her feel jury nullification is just if it aligns with their view point, justice be damned. Facts be damned. Evidence be damned. It is a real moral, ethical and I would say civil and societal problem.
It appears there are those who rather then distinguish between right and wrong, facts and evidence vs. how they feel is what matters. Where does this problem stem from? I think it is a multitude of things: parents teaching of their children right and wrong. Lack of civics in the class room. A sense of pride and of civic duty to nation and society.
Rather we have people like Roxane Gay who thinks and believes a guy who may have committed murder should be set free based on her political bias. We have seen professor’s in academia pressing for “People’s Tribunals.” And now jury nullification in the name of achieving political and social goals. Does not matter if the accused did it, even on video, witnesses, finger prints, if the accused is black, vote to acquit! That is the mentality that appears to have gripped many on the left and not just about the color of their skin.
As others have noted, this could go the other way too.
I would like to think this can be fixed by better parenting, the return of civics in the class room, the return of neutral teaching in public education and higher education. But if you have parents who are teaching their children it is okay to (whatever) if it aligns with their political bias to include murder, political bias in public education and higher education. And, oh, yeah, political bias in the MSM, I fear for future generations.
Absolutely spot on. That one landed in the 10 ring.
It’s not one of God’s better worlds. The horror…
Good morning, ladies and gents. We are dealing with another highly selective narrative today. Professor Turley, usually a staunch defender of historical precedent, seems to have developed temporary amnesia regarding the roots of jury nullification.
He frames the practice as a radical left-wing assault on the courts, ignoring the fact that it is a bipartisan tradition. In doing so, he omits the massive role that libertarians and small-government conservatives have played in educating prospective jurors on this exact superpower.
The historical record is clear. Jury nullification protected early American free speech during the landmark John Peter Zenger trial. In the modern era, right-wing organizations like the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) have spent decades teaching citizens how to use nullification to combat federal overreach, gun mandates, and tax codes.
FIJA’s entire foundation is libertarian. Its literature prominently features Lysander Spooner—the 19th-century anarchist legal theorist who wrote the definitive text on jury-led resistance—and the group was co-founded by former Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Larry Dodge.
It is highly ironic that Turley, who often aligns with libertarian legal views, conveniently omitted this history. But then again, presenting jury nullification as a deeply American check on government power would have made his partisan grievance column fall completely flat.
Because jury nullification is an structural tool used to push back against government overreach, FIJA’s educational work frequently overlaps with both far-left progressive criminal justice reform groups and right-wing/libertarian constitutionalist groups. This cross-spectrum dynamic is highlighted on their website, where they explicitly defend left-wing community organizations in Washington, D.C., that are facing congressional scrutiny for conducting similar jury education workshops.
Crazy eh?
Yeah, crazy eh? What else can one expect from George?
Just as big a threat as jury nullification is judge nullification that we see happening with the Judge Boasberg et al. The law schools of today teach students to not be objective, to bring their biases into their jobs and it has now reached the judiciary.
Think about Ktanji Brown’s dissents and their lack of objectivity regarding the law, precedent and the Constitution. This mid-wit has even rankled her liberal partners and when Sotomayor even says whoa there pal you know it is over for fairness.
Conservative Justices will split off quite often, with Barret Kavanaugh or Gorsuch often dissenting from conservative decisions, but Brown Sotomayor and Kagan vote in lockstep much more often.
What a heap of ….
Professor Turley writes, “Many courts bar lawyers from arguing for jury nullification.”
I often wondered if this was why the prosecutors in the Lindsay Clancy case didn’t tell the jurors to ignore the courtroom quackery coming from psychologists. The moment the question went from “did she intend to kill her children” to “was she insane when she killed her children,” it became literally impossible to remove reasonable doubt about her guilt, but prosecutors couldn’t say so without suggesting to the jury that they ignore the law surrounding “not guilty by reason of insanity” defenses.
My personal opinion is that she was insane and guilty. I can’t know the specific reasons why the lone juror in that case held out–I try not to read minds–but I would have concurred with him. In my mind, she had to be guilty of something.
Sorry for going off topic, but after that case, my opinion about insanity pleas changed. I think psychological testimony should be inadmissible. If lie detectors are inadmissible, why is this psychology nonsense allowed?
Psychology does illuminate general truths about human behavior, but when one tries to apply general principles to specific cases, especially rare cases, human behavior can be too complicated for deductive reasoning. Just my opinion.
There are no defenses? Maybe not. It kills, kill it works. The ultimate deterrent. Ford Motors Pinto killed. The builders were tried for ?
I’m just not smart enough and am a common juror. Jurors are incompetent.
There is political jurisprudence. There’s feminist jurisprudence now. The constitution is natural law jurisprudence. Failure to apply?
Have a good day
Diogenes is in favor of date rape drugs being used to attack women and, well, rape them. Since the women cannot prove they were incapacitated by the drugs they cannot prove they didn’t fully accept any level of brutality used against them. In fact, by discarding any psychological evidence, there can never be proof that any victim of any injurious crime didn’t ask for it. Maybe they wanted to be stabbed or shot or robbed.
Similarly Diogenes would toss out drunk driving charges as there is no proof that the drivers were psychologically impaired. Any crash would simply be accidental with no aggravating charge from alcohol use.
In the Lindsay Clancy case, medical professionals with educated backgrounds told her to take medications to offset her depression, medications which made her situation worse and drastically interfered with her judgement.
Dio, I do agree that an insanity defense is baked in and should not be. Try for 1st degree premeditated an if the shoe fits wear it.
“it is the power of doing simple justice in a nation committed to the rule of law.”
By their own words they do not appear to be committed to a rule of law. They appear to be dedicated to undermining the concept of rule of law.
I think the Clancy jury was a result of that effort.
Exactly
It is truly amazing to see just how much hatred, for freedom and an honor system based on a creed of moral behavior, that the progressives have successfully indoctrinated into so many flaccid little brains.
It rivals the most intense brainwashing needed to create a suicidal jihadi islamists.
The empty-headed blindness with which the newly minted zombies for the progressive cause pursue their own, unknowing, destruction is astounding in their total, willful, ignorance.
Just how blinkered would one need be to ignore, not only history, but a direct gaze at what progressive ideology mixed with communism and islam has wrought on this globe at the present time.
I fear for these generations who will inherit this disaster should progressive gain power.
Here we stand, the last bastion of free will and individual rights, and these tools for the progs willingly attend riots and demonstrations out of the sheer boredom of a life that exists, oh so comfortably, on the very system they are attempting to destroy in their erroneous notion of self-righteousness.
Why are all your comments focused on one thing: hate?
I am going to try to engage in wokespeak, so help me s@@tlibs!
“These brave nullifiers are part of the anti fascist revolution and are to be praised for taking such a brave stand against evil.”
Of course, the urban, upper middle class professors who advocate these positions won’t have to suffer the consequences of advocating such. It will be the poorer and working class citizens who cannot afford to move away and consist of decent citizens of all races.
And no, this observation does not make me a nazi.
antonio
Excuse me, I don’t mean to be a spoilsport, but long before we even heard of jury nullification, we have witnessed nullification by law schools, judges*, district attorneys**, and even novice attorneys***. We even see nullification of the law on the US Supreme Court. The jury version is just the last step.
* as in judge shopping
** as detailed lists of crimes not to be prosecuted
*** as in new lawyers weak in knowledge and skills
There’s an article relative to housing fraud conviction and a Qiana Johnson is this Johnson the same in the article??
I think the best comment is that this can cut both ways. If the left advocated jury nullification then so can the right. Having sat on a few juries over the years I was always impressed by the willingness of my fellow jurors to look at the facts and try to render a just and fair result. Never heard a political viewpoint raised at a jury trial.
I would not eliminate the Grand Jury, especially since it is in the constitution. However, procedure at the grand jury should change and allow for contested facts to be brought before the grand jury, as well as the defense attorneys. Make it more difficult for the Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.
Of course attorneys have to do their job and rigorously question prospective jurors and allow them to put jurors on the spot. Allow more challenges.
Or you can utilize a change of venue more liberally.
The thing to be avoided at all costs is for people to lose faith in trials and then you start to get Death Squads like in Argentina in the not too distant past.
Or you can take a page from the Napoleonic Code and dispense with Juries altogether and have a panel of judges. We do this in this country as soon as an appeal leaves a district court.
Lastly allow an appeal if a jury nullifies the law. That would really raise a stink and drive the double jeopardy people nuts.
Expansion of the jury pool might help. Fewer exclusions. Doctors should be on juries. They have people who can cover for them and so do other walks of life except for those who render hospice or total care and raise children
Yes, keep Grand Juries empowered to ask pointed questions, and to hear facts undermining the prosecutor’s case. Stop the legal eagles (lawyers and judges) from turning juries into rubber stamps. That said, outside activists intending to manipulate jury verdicts need to be charged with preemptive jury tampering, and related conspiracy.
Grand juries are rubber stamps because they hear only from prosecutors. There is no reason to retain them.
There are references to grand juries in the federal constitution. State governments are under no obligation to retain them and often do not.
==
As for federal grand juries, you can retain them pro forma while having cases to them screened by preliminary hearings.
“I think the best comment is that this can cut both ways.” My thoughts exactly, GEB. It’s baffling that Leftists never seem to have the forethought their ideas and actions will one day be used against them, perhaps 10-fold or more.
I am always curious who the major funders are of non-profit agitators like Free DC. No clue from their home page. But there is some tiny print at the bottom that says, “For DC, by DC. Free DC is a fiscally hosted special project of Community Change and Community Change Action.”
So I go to the financials for Community Change (“CC”) and Community Change Action (“CCA”). I see for 2025 CC had an annual budget of almost $55 million and CCA had over $10 million. Not chump change. It’s interesting (to me), that out of CCs $55 million budget, 10%, or $5.6 million goes for “management” and “general”. That’s as much detail as I can find on a quick scan about how much those at the top are paying themselves.
The bio of the executive director of CC, Keya Chatterjee, reads almost like a cartoon character of a far left crank: Previous Roles: Executive Director of the U.S. Climate Action Network (2014–2023), Senior Director at the World Wildlife Fund, Climate Change Specialist at USAID, and Program Officer at NASA. Oh. And she authored something titled, “The Revolution Will Not Be Rated G”.
Anyway, back to the funding. The financials say they received $54 million from “Grants, Contributions, Pledges, and Other”. Not much detail. (I really started down this path to see if Democrats have abused the appropriation process to use taxpayer funds to finance these DC based grifts.)
Inspired by GeorgeX, I decided to use AI. It says CC’s funding comes from Open Society Foundation (George Soros), Arabella Advisors; Tides Foundation, and Future Forward USA PAC. All orgs that fund and finance far left members of Congress and professional agitators.
So I asked specifically, “Does the non-profit Community Change receive money from Congress.” Nobody will be shocked to learn that the result of the search is that it does. According to the search results, in the slush fund Democrats created that they deceptively called the Inflation Reduction Act money was appropriated to fund CC. It does not say how much and I’m tired of having to go down so many rabbit holes to find out who is paying the bills for these outfits.
2025 Annual Report: Rising to the Challenge – Community Change
does the non-profit community change receive money from congress – Google Search
I appreciate your sleuthing. Good work.
Anonymous, bravo! Good to see someone finally doing something smart. Your research is pretty good and accurate. But I would go a bit further. It’s also very legal. A 10% overhead is actually pretty efficient.
Also this is the exact same structure many libertarian organizations utilize to fund their ‘think tanks’ and other outfits for political issues and agendas. They are big fans of this funding structure.