HEMP ACTIVIST APPEALS CHARGE OF CONTEMPT WHILE ON A JURY

DENVER - The first juror convicted of contempt of court in over 300 years
took her case to the Colorado Court of Appeals yesterday in a campaign to
win legitimacy for the jury-nullification movement.

The three-judge panel heard arguments in the case of Laura Kriho, the hemp
activist who was found guilty of criminal contempt in February 1997 after a
judge ruled that she deliberately misled the court to gain a slot on the jury.

The court could take several months to rule on the case, which has become a
rallying point for supporters of jury nullification. They argue that jurors
should be permitted to weigh the legitimacy of the law before deciding the
guilt or innocence of the accused.

"Jurors cannot be told what they must do in the deliberative process," said
Mrs. Kriho's attorney, Paul Grant. "You can't have trial by jury where you
throw out jurors who are independent thinkers."

Mr. Grant called her conviction a "frightening occurrence" that could leave
jurors vulnerable to prosecution for acting on their beliefs. In Mrs.
Kriho's case, she was summoned for jury duty in May 1996 in the trial of a
19-year-old accused of methamphetamine possession.

Mrs. Kriho, 34, was among the last jurors questioned, and prosecutors asked
whether there was any reason she would be unable to render an impartial verdict.

She brought up a legal dispute with her contractor, but failed to mention
her work for the legalization of industrial hemp and an LSD arrest 12 years
earlier.

During deliberations, she argued in favor of jury nullification, saying the
drug laws were unjust. Another juror sent a note to the judge, who declared
a mistrial.

Two months later, Mrs. Kriho was charged with perjury, obstruction of
justice and contempt.

Assistant Attorney General Roger Billotte said Mrs. Kriho had obstructed
justice by refusing to elaborate on her background as a hemp activist,
hoping to win a slot on the jury to push her political agenda.

"It's very clear that she's not revealing her opinions, her attitudes, her
very strong feelings on jury nullification and drug laws," Mr. Billotte said.

Mr. Grant said the court should have questioned Mrs. Kriho in greater detail
about her background instead of relying on her to decide what aspects were
relevant.

"Mrs. Kriho forthrightly volunteered some information not required by the
court, which was her most recent experience with the court. No one asked her
anything else," said Mr. Grant. "If the court wanted more information, the
court had to ask for it specifically.

" He said upholding her conviction could undermine the legal process by
encouraging prosecutors to pick "rubber-stamp" juries guaranteed of
delivering convictions.

"What I disagree with is that we are requiring [courts] to remove all jurors
who are suspicious of government power," said Mr. Grant.

Colorado Solicitor General Richard Westfall dismissed Mrs. Kriho's case as a
"rare situation" that would have no effect on jury selection.

"This has only come up once in a very long time," he said. A fair and
impartial jury is the cornerstone of the judicial system, he said. "If you
have strong biases going into this process, you are not going to be fair and
impartial," he said.

Mrs. Kriho was fined $1,200, which she has paid with donations from friends
and supporters in the jury-nullification movement.

Experts believe the last time jurors were charged with a crime for failing
to issue a guilty verdict was in 1670, when a jury was imprisoned and fined
for refusing to convict William Penn of unlawful preaching.

Her case already has had an impact on Colorado courts, according to her
attorney. "I know what's happening in Colorado today: Jurors are being
asked, 'Have you heard of jury nullification? Do you believe in jury
nullification?'" Mr. Grant said. "That is totally improper, and that is
where this case goes," he said.

Checked-by: Melodi Cornett