Trial starts for woman who called Black child a racial slur in Rochester
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
Opening statements began Tuesday afternoon in the trial of a woman who used a racial slur against a Black, autistic child in Rochester.
The incident, which was caught on video and went viral, led to Rochester City Attorney Michael Spindler-Krage charging Shiloh Hendrix, 37, with two counts of disorderly conduct. Hendrix has pleaded not guilty and faces up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Protected free speech or disorderly conduct?
In his opening statement, prosecutor Nicholas Shabel said Hendrix’s actions, not just her use of a racial slur, is central to the case. Shabel said Hendrix chased the boy, who was 8-years-old at the time, and frightened him.
Defense attorney Brian Karalus came right out and said his client’s use of the n-word was a bad choice. But he said there’s a line between something being morally wrong and something being illegal. Karalus said Hendrix’s speech was offensive but protected by the First Amendment.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
The boy has taken other people’s things before
The boy’s father testified with the help of a Somali interpreter on the witness stand. He said his son’s autism makes it hard for him to understand that he shouldn’t take things that aren’t his. And he said it’s happened before but, usually, people express more compassion than what happened last year.
At that point in his testimony, he got choked up and had to pause. He said parents are usually willing to help him when his son behaves that way in public.
Jury selection finished Tuesday morning. It includes five women and three men
During the jury selection, lead prosecutor Nicholas Shabel asked prospective jurors what an adult should do if they see someone else's child do something wrong. A few jurors said they would inform the child’s parent of the infraction. However, they all agreed that an adult should intervene if the child was in immediate danger.
The defense asked jurors if they felt like some speech should be considered criminal. Before they could answer, the state objected and the judge sustained the objection. He also asked prospective jurors if any of them were uncomfortable with U.S. protections for hateful speech. None raised their hands.
The trial continues Wednesday. The man who recorded the viral video and law enforcement officers are expected to testify for the prosecution.
Correction (July 22, 2026): The story has been updated with the boy’s correct age at the time of the incident.
