Unassigned

What First Amendment? Shiloh Hendrix Judge Omitted a Pretty Key Detail in Her Jury Instructions

Grateful Calvin
Grateful Calvin  |  9:10 AM on July 27, 2026


As Twitchy reported on Friday, a Minnesota jury last week ignored the Bill of Rights to convict Shiloh Hendrix on one count of 'disorderly conduct' for uttering a racial slur at a man who was harassing her in a park. 

Advertisement

You can read our coverage here, but as we noted in the story, Hendrix's attorney, Brian Karalus, called the verdict 'pathetic' and vowed to appeal the insane decision immediately. 

In discussing the case, Karalus railed against the judge, Christa Daily, for continually interrupting him, disallowing evidence, and taking an overall hostile attitude toward the defense throughout the trial. He noted all of the appellate issues she created through her behavior and actions. 

As it turns out, there is a reason the jury ignored the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment. Because Judge Daily completely omitted that pesky little Constitutional detail from her jury instructions. 

The Post Millennial obtained a copy of those jury instructions and, sure enough, there is no mention of the First Amendment in them. 

But get a load of what Daily DID include: 

Daily's jury instruction did not directly mention First Amendment protections other than to say it's not illegal to say something racist. The documents also asked jurors to examine their own "implicit bias," and suggested that the use of racial slur could "provoke a violent reaction" from Omar.

Recommended

Monday Morning Meme Madness
FuzzyChimp
Advertisement

'Implicit bias.' 

Basically, that is trying to coerce and shame the jury into coming back with a guilty verdict. 

Even worse, Daily denied Karalus's proposed jury instructions, which did cover Americans' First Amendment protections. 

A few days before official jury instruction was given out by Daily to the jury, Hendrix's defense attorney Brian Karalus submitted proposed jury instruction to the judge which addressed First Amendment protections multiple times.

The proposed instruction mentioned the First Amendment twice in three pages of instruction. Daily’s instruction—11 pages in length—did not mention the First Amendment once.

Daily's instructions also aimed at obtaining a guilty verdict by telling the jury to consider whether a racial slur could be considered 'fighting words.'

Never mind the fact that it was the cameraman who was provoking a confrontation throughout the video that was admitted into evidence. 

We're fine with only mentioning the things that should happen to her that we CAN talk about. 

Advertisement

At a minimum. 

Bringing up 'implicit bias' was basically the judge's way of instructing the jury that if they didn't find Hendrix guilty, they are bad people. 

Then there is the issue of 'provoking a violent reaction,' which should not be relevant at all, but particularly irrelevant given the nationality of the cameraman. 

Advertisement

... weren’t enslaved in the Americas, when that word was widely used.  This case just keeps getting dumber and dumber the more I read about it.

It makes us angrier and angrier the more we read about it. 

Leftists also might not like the precedent this verdict sets, should it stand (which it almost certainly will not). 

If this were the law of the land, we would need to build many more prisons for all of the leftists who would be found guilty of provoking a violent reaction. 

Given his criminal history, the man filming Hendrix shouldn't have even been allowed in a children's park, let alone taking videos in one. 

These are all issues that will be raised on appeal, but none are more egregious than Judge Daily pretending that the First Amendment does not exist. 

Advertisement

The verdict will likely be wiped out on appeal long before it ever needed to go to SCOTUS. 

But we almost wish it would, if only for the satisfaction of reading the scathing opinion that Justice Clarence Thomas would write about the case and Judge Daily. 

In case anyone was wondering, Daily looks exactly like everyone imagines she does. 

Of course, she did. 

Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that Daily will be impeached in Minnesota. And her current term runs through 2031.

If anyone lives in her district, just know that if you look—and vote—a certain way, she cannot be trusted to protect your rights ... or even acknowledge that those rights exist. 

Advertisement

============================================

Related:

Repeat the Line: Katie Hobbs' X Account Has a Joe Biden Moment on the Campaign Trail

GOOD! Families of 9/11 Victims Want Mayor Zohran Mamdani BANNED From 25th Anniversary

Hakeem Jeffries Reaches Stage Two of Democrat Denial Regarding New Jersey Election Fraud

Maximum Overdrive: NBC News Once Again Reports About the Violent Rage of Self-Driving Cars

NY Talk Show Host Sid Rosenberg Drops the Mic in Describing Zohran Mamdani to Fox News