When Courts Violate the Founders' Intent
I want to thank Saundra Torry for her April 7 Business column
"When
Jurors Choose to Ignore the Law," which discussed my prosecution for my
service as a juror on a drug-possession case in Colorado. I was
convicted
of contempt of court, in part for failing to volunteer my knowledge
about
the doctrine of jury nullification to the court during jury selection,
even though I wasn't asked about it. I was fined $1,200, though I could
have received six months in jail.

Although I did discuss jury nullification in the jury room, I was
not
trying to nullify the drug laws. I had reasonable doubts that the
defendant was guilty based on the lack of evidence.

My investigation and prosecution was caused by "improper"
arguments
I
made in the jury room about jury nullification and the harsh sentence
the
defendant could receive. If I had voted guilty, I never would have been
prosecuted.

My conviction for contempt illustrates just how threatened judges
and
prosecutors are by jurors. Many judges and prosecutors see jurors as an
inconvenience, a formality and an impediment to conviction. I believe
they want to make me an example to other jurors: an example of what
will
happen if you refuse to convict.

The practice of prosecuting jurors based on evidence of
"improper"
jury-room deliberations is reminiscent of medieval inquisitions and
Nazi
fascism. There is no kinder way to describe it.

In Ms. Torry's column, defenders of jury nulification argue that
juries
were designed to protect citizens from unjust laws and unjust
application
of laws. The jury has been called the last line of nonviolent defense
against a tyrannical and oppressive government.

When courts have the power to punish and imprison jurors, the
jury system no longer can stand between the citizen and the government.

The jury system has then become a rubber-stamp for the government
prosecution.

LAURA KRIHO

Nederland, Colo.