Left Wing Group: Use ‘Jury Nullification’ to Resist Trump DOJ
Resist Donald Trump by undermining the jury system, left-wing group tells activists.
Liberal activists should do everything they can to get on a federal jury so they can vote against charges brought by the Department of Justice, according to a left-wing group.
As reported first by the Washington Free Beacon, a group called Freedom Trainers has been hosting webinars and distributing materials on “jury nullification.” The George Soros-funded group Community Change is the “fiscal sponsor” of Freedom Trainers. It claims to oppose “authoritarianism.”
The group aims to use “jury nullification” to resist the DOJ and exploit the jury process to resist Trump.
NEW:
A left-wing activist group is teaching citizens in D.C. and elsewhere how to get on juries and vote to acquit defendants in cases brought by the Trump Justice Department, according to materials reviewed by the Free Beacon. pic.twitter.com/pUSjHxh9fH
— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) March 9, 2026
Materials obtained by the Free Beacon provide advice such as “Vote ‘not guilty’ for any reason you believe is just” and to consider if “anyone [was] actually harmed.”
The group also tells jurors to consider whether the law, in the individual’s view, is unconstitutional. Liberal politicians have claimed from the beginning that President Trump’s deportation efforts are unconstitutional.
Both the DOJ and a legal expert criticized the efforts to undermine the federal jury system for political aims.
“While we respect jurors’ role in the judicial process, the Department takes jury nullification and interference with official proceedings extremely seriously,” the DOJ told the Free Beacon. “Any group attempting to improperly influence juries who should serve as impartial arbiters of evidence should be held accountable.”
The Judicial Crisis Network also condemned the malfeasance.
“These latest attempts challenge the constitutional right to an impartial jury and, even worse, encourage citizens to bypass laws passed by our elected representatives,” President Carrie Severino told the Free Beacon. “This is just one more aspect of the legal system these extreme groups are trying to infiltrate.”
This is not the first time jury nullification has been proposed as a way to undermine legitimately passed laws.
In 2022, a Wesleyan University professor, along with several other legal scholars, floated the idea of jurors voting to acquit anyone charged with violating pro-life laws.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
nothing new but with so many fjb blmplo soldiers as judges its already mostly going their way
Soros funded progressives continue to use any and all methods to destroy our political system in order to save democracy. Hypocrites and enemies every single one of them. Every attempt should be made to disbar any lawyers championing nullification or participating in it. They need to be put on the defensive instead of allowed full rein to do whatever they want.
So you are taking the position that a jury has no right to nullify, and if it does it is breaking the law even though unfortunately there can be no legal consequences? And you deny the historical evidence cited by the FIJA people that nullification is an inherent power of juries, and that any law to strip them of that power would violate Article 3 § 2 and the 6th amendment?
I’m not taking a position myself. I don’t know enough about the history and am not sure how much to trust the FIJA material. But is this your position, or were you just unaware of the issue involved?
Teaching a class on how to disrupt the jury process is jury tampering. Regardless of whether any of the attendees are ever seated on a jury.
On the contrary, educating people about the jury process, including the jury’s inherent power / right (depending on how you see it) to judge the law as well as the facts, is the very opposite of tampering. At least that is the position pushed by FIJA, which at least used to be active on our side of politics. I don’t know whether it still is. I don’t know enough about the subject to decide whether they’re right or wrong, but I know it is or used to be a very popular opinion on the right.
FIJA used to hand out pamphlets outside courthouses, to educate potential jurors. Some judges objected and tried to have them arrested.
I do know that the first time I was called for jury duty they showed us a video about juries, which prominently mentioned the Zenger trial. If you think what they’re teaching is illegitimate, then you must believe the Zenger jury was a travesty, so why would the court tell us about it?
“held accountable”.
Be still, my heart.
Wake me when something happens.
Wake me when something happens.
Okay, Rip Van lichau.
“The George Soros-funded group Community Change is the “fiscal sponsor”…”
Not too long ago, I read a policy paper from some obscure think tank populated by former cia, special forces types who specialized in ‘wet work’ to accomplish certain blackops objectives for the USA.
It was all hypothetical, just thinking out loud, would never advocate it, but this paper suggested there are roughly 1000-1200 VIPs very high in the power structure around the globe at banking, logistics, government, military, etc. who are problematic for USA interests.
This paper intimated that if these people were no longer on this planet the world’s immediate problems could be contained to the benefit of the USA, if those power vacuums could be filled correctly.
It was all hypothetical, just thinking out loud, would never advocate it, but why did you think of Iran while reading this, and is George Soros on this list?
but again its the low(er)level street fighters who dont even really need the money to accomplish these goal
and they are doing it
lefty is in charge of
schools
msm
business
weapons
abortions
etc etc
I think it’s modeled after one of the Avengers movies, but if the Left had the SHIELD helicarriers, I have absolutely no doubt they would use them in that way.
they already do this and with the HELP OF THE DA!!!
the da leftists want to conflate honest moral laws of self defense and legal ownership of guns into their *confusion* on who can really be at fault
to witness:
A man who initially faced a murder charge for opening fire following the Kansas City Chiefs’ 2024 Super Bowl win was sentenced Monday to two years in prison in a case prosecutors said was complicated by the state’s self-defense laws.
and here they show how THEY confuse the issue::
1) “Under Missouri’s self-defense and defense-of-others doctrines, we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any charged defendant was the initial aggressor or did not act in lawful self-defense or defense of others to overcome justification,” the Jackson County prosecutor’s office said in a written statement.
vs
2). Police and prosecutors have said the shooting barrage started when one group of people confronted another for staring at them. Lyndell Mays is accused of being the first person to start firing. After that, a 15-year-old began to shoot toward Mays and hit Miller, who also admitted firing several shots.
so they know who is guilty
THEY KNOW IT
but say ( example #1) we have to prove who did what..who started it
they stated that the group who started admitted that they were being stared at and opened fire upon the “starers”
(Dominic Miller, who pleaded guilty to a weapons charge as part of a plea deal, was among at least six people to start shooting in the melee that sent players,
they just want to let their little blmplo rats free to do more harm
this jury nullification is in the event any of these cases make it to court
. Lisa Lopez-Galvan, the host of a local radio show, was killed while watching the rally with her family. About two dozen other people, many of them children, were wounded but survived.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutor-drops-murder-charge-shooter-chiefs-rally-cites-self-defense-rcna262676
the black matriarchy spreading their seeds ,again, with more violence towards whts
thats what this is allll about
Instead of saying should be held accountable, the AG should cite the law and throw the ‘Freedom Trainers’ in jail:
“Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror… imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.” — 18 USC 1503
The “Freedom Trainers” are correct. Jury nullification, a juror’s right to refuse to convict in the teeth of the law and the instructions of a judge, is a “thing.”
However, it cuts both ways. Conservatives should take this training, and vow (as I have) to never convict anyone whose conviction would not serve justice or when the law is unconstitutional (according to your own understanding). Jury nullification is as simple as that – a jury is not a rubber stamp and a jury is meant to assure that justice is served. This may mean convicting a criminal, but it may also mean derailing a politically-motivated prosecution and refusing to convict defendants facing “Trumped” up charges (if you take my meaning). If you, as a juror, determine that a person’s conviction would be a miscarriage of justice, rather than its fulfillment, you have a obligation to “nullify” the prosecution.
We’re supposed to be “self-governing.” That term has been corrupted to mean that we elect representatives so that they can govern us, when what was meant was that individuals should govern themselves. Be ungovernable. Jury nullification is one of the tools to make and keep us free. It has fallen out of use due to an incremental erosion of the right’s visibility. At first, it was acknowledged. Defense attorneys were able to remind jurors of this power. Then a court ruled that a jury doesn’t have a right to be told of this power. This devolved into courts not permitting defense attorneys to mention the right. Over time, this gave the impression that jury nullification is no longer allowed or was never legitimate, and jurors are restricted to a consideration of the facts as the court allows them to introduced and to the instructions on the law as given by the judge. In so “requiring,” courts are able to effectively dictate a jury’s decision.
If anyone reading this comment hasn’t read An Essay on the Trial By Jury by Lysander Spooner, I urge you to do so. It should be read by every high school student. If you read it, you will understand why it isn’t.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-an-essay-on-the-trial-by-jury-1852
Thanks so much for pointing this out. I especially like your reference to Lysander Spooner who if I recall rightly was one of the greatestat legal minds of the 19th century.
Yes but…there’s a very big difference between a juror answering questions honestly during selection process to become a juror on a particular case then acting in good faith during the proceedings, finding themselves unable to support the prosecution and a someone who deliberately conceals bias, answers dishonestly during selection, hides their deliberate intent to thwart the prosecution from the outset regardless of the evidence, the trial process, musical rulings, jury instructions.
I’ve found the relevant question during jury selection is most often phrased something like, “If you are seated, can you vote according to the interpretation of the law as given to you by the judge?” Sure I can. Doesn’t mean I will.
Jury nullification is effectively nullified if you think a prosecution is undertaken according to an unconstitutional law and you admit that you won’t/can’t accept the judge’s instructions on the law. Because the right exists, the very question is unlawful as it is meant to recruit pliable sheep, rather than the independent-minded citizens that a true jury provides to a defendant. As Spooner wrote, “Where the Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury, it guarantees the thing, and not merely something called by the same name.” (Paraphrasing from memory, although this is likely fairly accurate, at least.) The “thing” includes an informed jury (that is, a jury that knows its rights/authority). (Note also that in England, there was a time when jurors were sworn to “do justice,” by convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent. There was no nonsense about accepting a judge’s instructions on the law nor a requirement to abide by it. A real jury judges the facts and the law.) Morally, the right thing to do is to lie to get on the jury in order to nullify a prosecution. This is not the same thing as being asked if you are irreversibly biased against the defendant and are incapable of judging him without regard to your biases. If you are in this situation, and you can’t, at a minimum, judge the defendant without bias, you should recuse yourself, because getting yourself on a jury to convict someone regardless of the facts and the law does not provide the defendant with the jury he is guaranteed, not an unbiased jury, but a jury capable of setting its biases against the defendant aside. Nor is it “jury nullification.”
But your argument isn’t with me, it’s with Spooner. Read the essay, if you haven’t. Spooner makes arguments and gives proofs up one side and down the other, then turns it inside out and upside down. If Spooner can’t convince you, certainly you won’t be convinced by me.
DavidGinONly: The problem with trying to “cut both ways” is that the Democrats live near the centers of power, the polis. Even in a red state the capital city is a blue dot. So any case of a political nature most likely has mostly Ds deciding who is guilty.
While true, the problem with a solution that includes the abandonment of jury nullification by honest jurors is that it will result in convictions of innocent people and still fails to address your problematic situation. Like gun control, such a scheme only affects the honest and law-abiding, and not the criminal-minded who will allow a true criminal to escape justice.
Also, even if juries could be prevented entirely from exercising their right to nullification (good luck with that) in order to assure convictions of guilty parties, the abuse of jury nullification will be replaced by an inability of juries to prevent abuses of the judicial process by government. Juries were established to check government and not merely to convict in the stead of a lord or king.
So, the question is, “What would you rather have – juries that occasionally deliver something other than justice, or a government unrestrained from doing the same systematically?” Juries were created to prevent the latter, but they can only do that if they know their rights and exercise them when necessary. Certainly, the founders would have considered the people a safer repository for the ultimate determination of a law’s justice, fairness, and application to a defendant’s case than the government. Do you trust the government?
I believe in the right of nullification too. But bringing it into the public consciousness will disproportiontely hit conservatives in the political cases.
tbones, we could have used a few nullifiers on the J6 juries.
A Republican on trial in DC is the most extreme example of a biased jury pool. It would be reasonable to expand the jury pool into neighboring states.
I disagree with their politics and the reason for embracing jury nullification but the above is not what the “Freedom Trainers” are advocating. Unless I missed it there was no call to bribe or threaten or force jurors to arrive at a verdict favorable for those prosecuted by the DOJ.
the threat is to an honest system when faced with adversity
so if you are sitting on that jury and a mean mugging blmplo juror is letting you know that they are going for nullification and you and your identity are known ….you might feel threatened
Why would a mean mugging blmplo not be struck from selection by the DA? And if not, why would they let other jurors know why they were not going along with the majority if there is one? AFAIK jurors are not required to reveal why they vote one way or another.
but once in that jury room and they are in fact letting you know
and also by letting you know what they are doing its a chance for them to see who is on their side or not
They’re not acting “corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication”. They’re merely educating people about the right of jurors to judge both the facts and the law, contrary to the instruction judges routinely give jurors that they may not judge the law. Judges control the courtroom and can ban lawyers from informing jurors of their right to acquit despite the evidence, but they can’t control what people say outside the courtroom, and certainly not what people say outside the immediate vicinity of the courthouse.
BOTH SIDES can play that game. And if one side is going to, then the other side NEEDS to as well.
How can both sides play the game? If we get on a jury we can use nullification to acquit people we think are being unfairly prosecuted, but we can’t use it convict people we think are guilty as hell but are being let off because the Democrats like them.
Or, at least, if it were theoretically possible to eliminate jury nullification, that would not address the jurors who refuse to convict someone who actually committed a crime. It’s just that the latter sort of knucklehead is indistinguishable from a juror who honestly thinks a law is unconstitutional and refuses to enforce it, leading some to conflate the two. Sometimes both sorts will reach the same conclusion, sometimes either sort may be wrong.
But those advocating to throw the baby out with the bathwater are unwise.
I can’t believe you would ask such a dumb question. And you’re supposed to be a lawyer?
Consider that (as remote a possibility as it might have been), a skeptical jury in Manhattan acquitting Donald Trump from the scurrilous politically motivated charges leveled against him by DA Alvin Bragg. So that would indeed be a case of jury nullification to acquit against a leftwing prosecution.
As I wrote, “If we get on a jury we can use nullification to acquit people we think are being unfairly prosecuted”.
But here we’re discussing cases where the accused is guilty as hell, and either leftist prosecutors are not even bringing them to trial, or leftist jurors are nullifying the law and voting to acquit them. Us getting on those juries can’t change that. It’s not a game both sides (i.e. for and against the prosecution of any given case) can play.
Is is OK to say that this abominable state of affairs with the judiciary is hopeless? Who’s stopping it?
Luigi Mangione.
No, wait. He’s doing it wrong.
Wow.
Jury nullification.
Gun ownership as protection against tyranny.
All the stuff the left is suddenly “discovering” as invaluable.
I’d declare victory, did I not know that slimy opportunist sh1tlibs will flipflop AGAIN, the very second they regain power.
Straight from the Constitution of the state of Georgia:
Article I, Section I, Paragraph XI(a), affirms that in criminal cases, “the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts”.
Good Lord. Isn’t that the state that also gave us Fani Willis?
Yes. And your point is?
Juries seem like an antiquated system to me. The sample size is too small and unanimous consent should not be required.
Larger, more representative sample…less stringency on agreement.
The Left already does this, and has been doing it for years in DC. If even *one* of the J6 judges had said what we all know, that the charges brought by the prosecution were wildly over the top and started giving $50 fines and time served to the non-violent offenders and dismissing the 1512 charges with prejudice, the whole crooked pile would have collapsed, and the trial backlog would have been gone in a week. Bringing to the present day and grand juries are refusing to indict violent leftists while rubber-stamping any baseless charge brought against Republicans, particularly Trump.
It’s not coming down the pike. It’s here.
Yes. I used to be a big fan of Royce Lamberth. Not since the J6 trials.
This is how vigilanties are born.
Remember, the criminal justice system is to protect society and the accused. It gives an impartial system for the settling of alleged crimes. If the system is no longer impartial, people will just start punishing the accused themselves.
100% correct
and to a degree the left wants those confrontations as they are the ones who control the streets and the courts and more importantly
the msm
I see story after story especially when the victims are latino and non blck…its always
we need to bring the communities together to stop this
I just posted a rather long story on that from KC trial where blk males after SB Chiefs victory in 2024 got into a shooting match b/c the other guys were staring at them
innocent latino female murdered
the bad pos got 2 years time served in a hospital for wounds
and all charges dropped
the da even lied and said we dont know who started this. and yet paragraphs down in the story said exactlyyyyy who started it
yeah
blc matriarchy female prosecutor
I’m old enough to remember when FIJA was a right-wing cause, and it was the Democrats who were shocked at it and tried to suppress it.
Milhouse you know they are telling to people to throw out any proprietary of the evidence and just vote against the governments positio.
Only in cases where the charges are ones they think are always unjust. That’s exactly what FIJA was urging.
Not “just vote against government,” but have an honest, informed, and rational opinion that the government’s prosecution of a defendant is unjust and/or that the law being used is unconstitutional, and that a conviction would be a miscarriage of justice rather than its provision.
Or would you rather the government be the sole judge of these matters? How has that been working out for you?