ROCHESTER, Minn. – A conviction has reportedly been reached in the Shiloh Hendricks case. Follow KIMT News 3 to find out when the verdict is announced.
PREVIOUS REPORT:
The trial of a woman charged with disorderly conduct for using a racial slur against a child entered closing arguments Thursday.
Shiloh Hendricks was charged following an incident that occurred on April 28, 2025. On Thursday, the judge began by asking members of the jury if they had discussed the case outside the courtroom, and they all denied it.
The defense called a Rochester Police Department detective who first interviewed the father on May 8, 2025, approximately 10 to 11 days after the incident. The detective confirmed that the father did not initially say he was afraid Hendrix would hit his son. In an interview on May 9, 2025, he said he was afraid she would hit his son.
The judge warned defense attorney Brian Karalus that he was being held in contempt of court for refusing to stop proving his case that GoFundMe is a well-known and trusted website.
Prosecutors said it was a simple case based on evidence, not emotion. They claim Hendrix’s words amounted to assault and that her behavior was erratic.
The defense argued that the government was “persecuting the girl for using profanity.” Karalus said this is the result of years of cancel culture in American society.
The defense said there was no evidence Hendricks knew what was stolen from the bag or that the boy was autistic. Karalus said prosecutors are using the boy’s autism to win the sympathy of jurors.
The defense noted that the father showed no emotion or expressed fears that Hendricks would hit his child during the first police interview on May 8, 2025. When my father testified before the jury, he became emotional and cried. The defense also highlighted how evasive the father was when asked about the GoFundMe, which raised $340,000.
The defense argued that Hendricks’ behavior was merely reactive and she had a right to return the stolen property. Karalus said such language is offensive, but does not fall within the scope of fighting and is not disorderly conduct.
The defense concluded by arguing that Americans should be allowed to speak freely without government censorship.