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.”
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.
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.
“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.
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
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.