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.”
Jack Smith was a prosecutor doing his job. He was assigned by the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute the crimes of Donald Trump.
The evidence of those crimes was obvious. Trump had stolen classified documents and had committed election subversion crimes, including concocting a fake electors scheme to submit false election results and pressuring state election officials to find him more votes or not certify results.
Republicans, however, had no interest in holding Trump accountable. They chose instead to paint Smith’s prosecution as a witch hunt. And, unfortunately, they had allies in the judiciary who were more than willing to do what was necessary to make the cases go away.
The first blow to Smith’s prosecution came from Trump-appointed judge Aileen Cannon in Florida. She was unable to dismiss Trump’s classified documents case on its merits, so she instead let Trump’s lawyers play every game they could to delay it from going to trial. Then she dismissed the case under the false pretense that Jack Smith had been unlawfully appointed.
Jury nullification is an “interesting” (as in “may you live in interesting times”) subject. [full disclosure: I am a firm believer in jury nullification, but did not comment on the subject until I aged out of jury service, as I was aware that such public declaration would make impossible my selection for a jury I might want to serve on. [Like strong medicine, a little of it used at the right time and in the right amount can be beneficial – when overused or overdosed it can be as harmful as the ill it would seek to treat.] It is a subject/phenomenon the general populace is not overly well informed about, and is also divided about regarding the utility or virtue of the practice; interestingly, it is also a phenomenon about which the actual players in our judicial system are almost – almost, but not quite – universally opposed to and condemnatory of.
It is my opinion/observation that jury nullification arises primarily under three sets of circumstances: (1) a jury member uses it purposely to frustrate the system as a matter or protest or in furtherance of an unannounced agenda, or (2) is used by a jury member to thwart a prosecutor or other actor (plaintiff?) who is perceived to be acting unfairly or selectively, or (3) rises in rough proportion to the public’s loss of confidence in the court system itself as a seeker of truth and dispenser of justice – i.e., loss of the public’s confidence that the judicial system as “working”.
I am neither a wild-eyed radical nor an anarchist, but I am fully aware of how the “justice” system can be weaponized against an individual or an idea. For those who doubt this please review some of the recent court actions against Donald J. Trump or consider how the January 6th “insurrectionists” were treated.
So what is a juror to do? For me, were I ever to have been chosen (I “failed” voir dire three times) a juror is a protector. He/She stands as a protector of the individual citizen at whom the awesome power and resources of the state can be aimed in causes that would shock the conscience; he/she also serves as a protector of citizens as a group in judging and condemning malefactors who have wronged their fellow citizen leading to incarceration and thereby incapacitation of said malefactor to protect citizens from his repeated frauds, predations, or assaults.
In our judicial system, courts are considered to be courts of law, not courts of justice. This is pretty much the way it has to be, lest we come to live under a government of men, not of law. As an example of court of “justice”, consider some of SCOTUS Justice Ketangi Brown Jackson’s rulings. Unfortunately, that same system, especially in Louisiana gives a wink and a nod to those who lie in court – when was the last time you heard of a perjury prosecution in this state? But citizen fealty to the law extends only so far as the law itself is considered just.
I know I won’t, but I would dearly love to hear Prof. Turley (or any lawyer worth his salt) respond to my comments.
Does Turley Ever Look At Real News?
A Manhattan judge on Monday ruled that Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor and the daughter of one of Mr. Trump’s most well-known critics, was unlawfully fired last year.
In a 55-page ruling, Judge Jesse M. Furman of Federal District Court in Manhattan wrote that the Justice Department had violated the separation of powers, federal administrative law and Ms. Comey’s due process when it fired her in July 2025.
Edited From Today’s New York Times
…………………………………..
In real news, Donald Trump is using the DOJ as his personal attack dog to prosecute anyone he doesn’t like; or to file bogus lawsuits against the states.
With regards to the Comey’s, Trump had the DOJ file a convoluted prosecution against James, the former FBI Director. Trump also had the DOJ fire Maurene Comey, daughter of James. Maurene had been a highly regarded Federal Attorney in New York.
Stories about Trump’s DOJ and FBI have dominated the news since Trump returned to office. Yet Turley, a constitutional scholar, never covers those stories.
Instead Turley writes increasingly desperate warnings about the prospect of court-packing. And now we learn that jury nullification is another possibility that should make us sick with worry.
A Constitution lover supports a Constitution violator.
Tech and defense companies that spent the last two years cozying up to President Donald Trump are now rushing to court Democrats, as they brace for a wave of congressional investigations if the party wins control of Congress in the midterms.
Cooper Teboe, a Democratic strategist based in Silicon Valley, reports that firms that built ties to the Trump administration have been calling him in a panic, asking which Democrats they should donate to or recruit for their boards.
“They essentially made the cardinal sin of forgetting that pendulums reliably do one thing — and it swings back most of the time,” Teboe said. “They’ve got a very rough couple years ahead.”
Donating money in exchange for not being investigated is bribery.
Absolutely !!!
These tech companies poured hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, into Trump’s coffers and vanity projects to curry favor and avoid investigations.
Now the tide has turned and they see the writing on the wall, so they are now falling over themselves to curry favor with Democrats.
Follow these steps to carefully remove stool with your finger:
You comments reads like you enjoy playing in poo way too much.
Finally !!
We finally have some useful and relevant information posted on this miserable excuse for a legal blog.
It certainly makes a welcome change from the MAGA slop and drivel that Turley puts out daily to inflame the MAGA mob denizens of this completely worthless blog.
ANON IS FULL OF SH*T TODAY!! Weirdo!
REVELATION
The reporting offers anecdotes, not proof of wrongdoing. Corporations routinely hedge their political bets; that’s business as usual when government wields enormous power over private enterprise. The real scandal isn’t the pendulum swinging—it’s a government powerful enough to reward friends, punish enemies, and make corporate America court both sides for protection. Investigate evidence of illegality, not political affiliations.
Looking at the discussion around this piece, it is amazing how many readers are falling over themselves to protect big government. People are repeating Turley’s talking points like robots, arguing that regular Americans shouldn’t be allowed to step in when a prosecution feels wrong.
This is not some crazy ‘leftist plot’ to undermine the judicial system.
EXACTLY!
Finally someone making sense.
Something you’ve never done X.
Esquire, exactly correct. Citizens have a duty to step in when ridiculous prosecutions are brought forward.
Look no further than the felony indictment of the Subway sandwich assassin, the Reflecting Pool vandalism charges, the sedition charges against 6 Democratic lawmakers, the absurd assault charges of Sydney Reid where 3 separate grand juries refused to indict.
When we have rogue prosecutors in a rogue DOJ bringing ridiculous charges on orders from Trump, every citizen has a duty to stand up and refuse to indict or convict those being persecuted.
If that were true, “Big Fanny” Willis, “Big Fatty” Lee Sista (First Name’s Ug) James, Jack “Ass” Smith et al. would be in solitary in Supermax.
Decades ago I read an article in the Atlantic(?) by a DC prosecutor who was warned when he was new to the job that he would sometimes have solid evidence of guilt but the jury would refuse to convict.
He found that to be true with black defendants and juries with black members. The prosecutor was himself black and concluded the article by justifying the jury nullification.
I suppose that still continues but now we seem to be seeing DC juries of bureaucrats refusing to accquit when Democrats or other favorites are on trial but rushing to convict, even on slim evidence, when conservatives are facing trial.
That type of abuse is spreading. Want to strangle your children? Do it in Massachusetts. But it is especially problematic in DC where trials tinged with politics and national policy are concerned.
Abolish the DC courts. Maybe abolish self rule in DC altogether. The rot must be stopped.
Correction: “bureaucrats refusing to accquit when Democrats or”
Should be: “rushing to acquit when Democrats…”
Autocorrect isn’t always my friend.
“refusing to a quit when Democrats…”
Should be “RUSHING to acquit when Democrats…”
Just when you want to be enjoying hobbies, traveling, socializing and more, constipation can put the brakes on. It’s a common problem – especially for older adults who have an underlying illness, mobility issues or take certain medications.
Understanding the causes of constipation and knowing some tips for preventing and relieving it can keep it from affecting your quality of life.
Stick to the days subject ANON!! Start your own health blog. You are FOS!! (full of..)
Ingrown toenails next ANON??
PRESERVE THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT – JURY NULLIFICATION IS REAL
Jury nullification is when a criminal trial jury returns a not‑guilty verdict despite believing the defendant broke the law, typically because jurors view the law, its application, or the potential punishment as unjust. It is a power, not a formal legal right, and jurors cannot be punished for using it.
What Jury Nullification Is
A jury may acquit even when evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if jurors believe:
the law itself is unjust,
the law is being unfairly applied,
the punishment would be disproportionate, or
the prosecution’s conduct is objectionable.
It results in a final acquittal due to the Fifth Amendment’s double‑jeopardy protection.
Jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts, which makes nullification possible.
What Jury Nullification Is Not
It is not a legal right defendants can demand or a doctrine courts formally endorse. Judges do not instruct juries that they may nullify.
It is not the same as a hung jury. A hung jury produces no verdict; nullification produces an acquittal.
Jurors cannot nullify to convict someone; they may only refuse to convict.
Historical and Modern Use
Historically used to oppose laws seen as unjust, including:
Fugitive Slave Act prosecutions,
Prohibition-era alcohol laws,
Vietnam War draft‑evasion cases.
Colonial and early American examples include the 1735 John Peter Zenger trial and resistance to the Navigation Acts.
Patterns of nullification have influenced policy, such as contributing to the repeal of Prohibition.
Critics argue such efforts undermine impartial juries and the rule of law, while supporters cite Founding‑era views that jurors may judge the justice of laws themselves.
Bottom Line
Jury nullification remains a legally tolerated but unofficial feature of the U.S. justice system: a powerful, controversial mechanism through which juries may act as a community conscience by refusing to enforce laws they deem unfair
There is nothing more American than a jury deciding whether the law itself applied to a given case is just, whether the prosecutor’s motive in bringing the case was motivated by politics, racism, misogyny, xenophobia or other improper reasons, and whether the potential penalty is merited by the conduct. That’s why we have juries–to judge the law and how it is applied in a given case constitute justice.
Nice plagiarism.
Though I didn’t realize it at the time, the PD’s closing remarks in a trial I was on 25 years was a pure plea fir jury nullification. A young Vietnamese man (he used a translator) had wheeled a cart containing two cases ofvwine out of a Safeway one day.
The deli man noticed this, and notified store security, which stopped and detained him till police arrived.
The PD didn’t talk about hus client’s guilt or innocence. Just about his youth, and the consequences of a prison sentence. This went right over my head as extraneous. Now I see it was a plea to let him off, despite his guilt.
Not our jury. We matched the facts to the elements of the crime.
Read about the trial of the two men accused of murdering Emmett Till. That social justice door can swing in a way these advocates wouldn’t like.
OT, but related to the law and people’s depending on AI to make their . . . analysis,
‘Botch Job’: After Judge’s Ruling Riddled With AI Errors, Appeals Court Allows Mississippi DEI Ban To Take Effect
https://www.thecollegefix.com/botch-job-after-judges-ruling-riddled-with-ai-errors-appeals-court-allows-mississippi-dei-ban-to-take-effect/
That is right. A flawed legal analysis. Made by a judge. Using AI.
Just goes to show you have have a law degree, even be a judge, use AI and still be an idiot.
*Just goes to show you can have a law degree, even be a judge, use AI and still be an idiot.
You’re the guy who ranted that Maher was a Trump friend. Guess you don’t knwo what you’re talking about. Talk about being a loser eh farmer.
Trump posts 1,300-word rant against ‘loser’ Bill Maher after second dinner,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv-streaming/2026/10/26/donald-trump-rant-bill-maher-white-house-dinner/92440881007/
Safety Tips for People Living With Dementia
Carry identification with you in case you get lost or need help. If you drive, talk with your doctor about changes in your driving and take seriously family and friends who express concerns. Make minor changes in the home to create a safer environment to prevent falls and injuries. Good balance, a habit of standing up slowly, and non-skid shoes can also help prevent falls.
Home-safety tips:
Great advice. A list of things to remember for those who cannot remember.
calling hullbobby!
That was a memo left behind by the Biden admin staff.
Demented PSYCHO ANON who thinks everyone is Estovir!
Bull Hobby
Bull Hobby
Jury nullification in pursuit of justice is absolutely essential as a check upon tyranny.
I was once on a jury where the defendant was being prosecuted for shooting and wounding an assailant who had forcibly invaded his home. The judge instructed us jurors to reach a verdict only on whether the defendant was guilty of shooting the plaintiff, not whether he was justified in doing so. Yes, the fact was that the defendant was guilty of shooting the plaintiff, but we jurors found him not guilty on the basis of the basic right self-defence, something the legal system increasingly is trying to eliminate. Law and justice are not always the same. Jury nullification is an important defense against unjust law.
Well, numbnuts, that’s the difference between prosecution and defense. Obviously the judge’s instruction was a mistrial on appeal. Disregard the defense?
Send a person to prison on the grounds that, after losing their job, their home, their car, and their family, they had a possibility of getting a new trial on appeal?
Maybe someone in prison decides to kill them. How does the wrongly convicted person get justice then?
Weston, pardon numb nuts. I’m melting down …
OMG! It was judicial nullification of the Constitution that allowed “Crazy Abe” to deny a constitutional right to secession and plunge the nation into the catastrophic Uncivil War.
It was judicial nullification of the Constitution that allowed Social Security and Medicare to survive under the guise of promoting the “general Welfare,” despite their benefits being concentrated among only 18.7% of the population.
And it was judicial nullification of the Constitution that effectively erased the limits of Article I, Section 8, allowing the federal government to regulate virtually everything while eviscerating individual liberty and property rights under the Fifth Amendment. The consequences extend to government control over wages, prices, rents, whom we may sell to or rent to, and zoning, building, and planning decisions.
When the judiciary abandons constitutional limits, enumerated powers become unlimited powers, private property becomes a government-regulated privilege, and individual liberty becomes whatever the government permits. Industries are left to navigate a maze of regulations that, in effect, displace the freedom and self-regulation that a constitutionally limited government was designed to protect.
That is not constitutional government. It is government by judicial permission.
“The Dictatorship of the Majority”
“The Dictatorship of the Poor”
OMG! There is no constitutional right to secession, nor even mention of secession in the Constitution, nor was there ever any right of secession declared among the states ratifying the Constitution. Those states were given several days to amend, suggest, or reject any Articles therein, before signing/ratifying it.
But the Constitution DOES expressly give the Courts and SCOTUS the final constitutional interpretation and declaration of the “law of the land.” (texas v. white did exactly that, regarding secession.)
As to your remaining examples of jury nullification, it does not appear that you understand what jury nullification means? are you confusing it with congressional non-signatories? Please site the captions of the cases to which you allude, thanks.
“cite” not “site.” excuse me, please.
Please cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession.
Please note that with reference to the power of secession, the 10th Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Please note that multiple state constitution ratification documents state, “…the delegated powers of government could be ‘resumed’ or ‘reassumed’ by the people if the federal government perverted those powers to their injury, oppression, or if it became necessary to their happiness,” or something to that effect.
“Please cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession.”
If you understood the function of our Constitution, your (daily) demand would be: Cite where in the Constitution it permits government to secede.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Is it possible for representatives from a state to enter discussions within congress to leave the union? Perhaps buy their way out?
Carpe: I am in a hurry, but I believe so, with final decision vested in Congress. What the above commenter misses in declaring Lincoln’s lack of powers, is that the Articles of Confederation, signed in the 1770s -WAY before the Constitution, -had already committed states to the formation of a “perpetual union,” later made “perfect” by the Constitution.
Don’t haVe time to look it up, but I am pretty sure of it; correct me if I am wrong, thanks.
Now there’s some law; cite a totally unrelated corpus juris.
At least she didn’t attempt to impeach Article 1, Section 8, by stating that Social Security and Medicare constitute “general Welfare” when both serve a small, individual, and particular portion of the population and not “all or the whole,” as in “general Welfare.”
Please cite the Constitution for “interpretation.”
AI Overview
The word “interpretation” does not appear anywhere in the text of the United States Constitution.
Corrupt decisions by corrupt and/or incompetent courts do not amend the Constitution per the prescribed constitutional amendment process.
Article 3—The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.
The judicial branch has the power ONLY to judge. The judicial branch has no power to modify or amend the Constitution or to legislate.
Merriam-Webster
judge
1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
Wait! Where’s lame, I mean lin’s definitive rebuttal?
The Confederates took secession to court? I always thought they kicked things off by firing on Fort Sumter.
IFIFY.
For those of you in Rio Linda.
You got that back asswards. His Tyrantess, “Crazy Abe,” declared martial law, seized power, suspended habeas corpus, and maintained an offensive military force of the United States on the territory of the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America.
He was good enough to pay the penalty for his crimes, however. I’ll give him that.
Bet you don’t know where Rio Linda is! Lincolns fault for everything?? STUPID
Sacramento.
The Constitution held dominion for only 71 years. Lincoln threw the baby out with the bathwater; he threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery. Lincoln began the “jury nullification” of the Constitution outlined above. America has been off the Constitution and decompensating since 1860.
Sacramento.
The Constitution held dominion for only 71 years. Lincoln threw the baby out with the bathwater; he threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery. Lincoln began the “jury nullification” of the Constitution outlined above. America has been off the Constitution and decompensating since 1860.
This is just another scam to get individuals that are not taught to think critically. They unknowingly put themselves at risk while the individuals promoting it get away based on free speech. Then when the individual is charged they can claim to be a victim of the justice system instead of holding the people that told them to do it accountable
The scammers on two fronts.
It should have been The scammers win on two fronts
p.s. I found this posted on internet social media:
hsjung7517
November 11, 2025 at 1:01 PM
For those considering jury nullification for Luigi Mangione, keep your support offline. Public declarations will disqualify you during background checks. Stay neutral to ensure you’re selected, as nullification is his only hope given the damning evidence. He acted against a man who valued profit over lives, committing an ethically right act despite its unlawfulness. It’s just to free him, even if he’s guilty.
I mentioned the above as example of how the parameters of jury nullification could be expanded. Another wary-filled example could be race-based nullification, e.g., “Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System.” The Yale Law Journal 105, no. 3 (December 1995): 677-725, or any nullification premised on no more than some sort of identification with a defendant, irrespective of law.
Republicans have made America worse, so now it is up to the Democrats to make America great again.
That is a true oxymoron!
You’re an idiot! The only thing standing between maintaining our Constitutional Republic, and its destruction from the Islamo-Marxists (democratic party) is Republicans. The democratic party INO, has made their agenda and goal crystal clear… to destroy/dismantle every system of govt, and every institution; including the constitution, and implementing a govt controlled by mob rule, eliminating individual rights and freedoms in favor of “the warmth of collectivism,” to ensure they hold permanent power. America is basically the only bastion of individual freedom and prosperity left in the world, as Europe, the UK, Canada, etc., have gone the way of restricting freedoms, and have fallen to the Red-Green Alliance. If America goes the way of the rest of the West, the world is doomed, and all of Western society devolves into chaos and lawlessness, where the violent mob rules. Republicans are far from perfect; they’ve pissed me off plenty, but they believe in our Constitutional Republic. And the alternative is terrifying!
In some states such as Arizona, to avoid mentioning the subject of jury nullification, potential jurors are often asked a general question at the end which goes something like ‘Is there anything else you haven’t told us?’ (i.e., ‘do you support jury nullification?’).
When answering this question, if a potential juror supports jury nullification but does not tell the court so and the case results in a hung jury, he can be required to pay the cost of enpanelling another jury.