RIGHTS ON TRIAL: THE RULING
Judge Finds Kriho Guilty

When Laura Kriho served on a jury in May 1996, in Gilpin
County, Colorado, she was the single hold out against a
conviction in a drug case. After less than five hours of
deliberation, Judge Kenneth Barnhill declared a mistrial claiming
the jury was hung. When Kriho was tried on October 1 & 2, 1996,
for contempt of court as a direct result of her lone hold out
notguilty vote, the presiding judge, Henry Nieto, was 'hung' for
more than four months before issuing a guilty verdict on February
10, 1997. Neither Kriho nor her lawyer, Paul Grant, was notified
by the court when the verdict was issued. They found out when a
local reporter, who had just happened to call the court that day
asking about a verdict, wanted their comments.
Kriho was not surprised by the conviction, but she was
surprised by which of the three charges of criminal contempt of
court she was convicted of.
She was found not guilty of disobeying an order of the
court. According to the ruling, "No evidence of the trial court's
orders to the jury was introduced by the People. Orders given to
jury concerning their conduct during the course of a trial are
court orders and might support a finding of contempt if there was
evidence that such an order was given and it was deliberately
violated."
This charge was related to the allegation that, as a juror,
Kriho looked up the sentence the defendant was facing. Kriho
testified that she already knew the penalties, and was just
verifying her prior knowledge.
On the charge of perjury, Kriho was found not guilty. She
was accused of lying under oath "regarding her views about drug
laws," about her "willingness to follow the law" as given by the
judge, and about her "prior experience in the justice system,"
referring to her 1984 plea bargain on a drug charge. According to
the ruling, "The evidence in this case does not meet [the]
conditions [described in Murer v. Rogowski, 780P.2d 853 (Colo.
App. 1971)]...The District Attorney could have filed a criminal
charge against Ms. Kriho for perjury if he had chosen to do so."
Kriho was convicted of what was believed by her lawyer to be
the vaguest charge against her obstruction of justice. The
court ruled that "Kriho deliberately withheld her opinions...
Based on all the evidence, this Court concludes that it was Ms.
Kriho's intent to withhold this information from the trial court
and the parties so that she could be selected to serve on the
jury and obstruct the judicial process. By deliberately
withholding this information, she obstructed the process of
selecting a fair and impartial jury... This Court finds this
conduct constitutes obstruction of justice and the conduct was
offensive to the authority and dignity of the trial court."
Red Beckman of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is
"...glad [the judge] put [the ruling] that way because they don't
have any right to sort the jury. This is one of our long standing
complaints. Instead of an impartial jury, they want a partial
jury. And they don't have any right whatever to ask [jurors]
questions."
Kriho still doesn't really understand what she did wrong. "I
responded to all their questions. I answered truthfully and
honestly." If she had to do it over again, she can't think of
anything she would do differently. She had testified that she
felt she could be fair and impartial, and that there was nothing
she could think of that would interfere with that ability.
Testimony from other jurors revealed that she even demonstrated
her reasons for reasonable doubt during deliberations. Kriho also
testified that she tried to get out of reporting for jury duty,
citing transportation difficulties, to no avail.

THE REAL ISSUE
In his ruling, Nieto stated, "Ms. Kriho, through her
counsel, has mischaracterized the issues in this case. This case
is not now and has never been about how Ms. Kriho voted during
jury deliberations. This case is about whether Ms. Kriho misled
the trial court and the trial attorneys about important matters
during the jury selection process with the intent to remain on
the jury and obstruct the legal process."
"That's false," insists Kriho's attorney, Paul Grant. "She
was accused of disobeying a court order, and the only thing that
she was given that could be construed as an order would be the
jury instructions. And if she disobeyed them, she disobeyed them
in the jury room...The original motion for contempt citation
quoted, at length, other jurors [revealing] what Laura said in
the jury room. So it is about jury deliberations."
Kriho also believes that her jury vote is the issue. "If I
would have convicted [the defendant] this never would have
happened. Basically what they said in my ruling is not that you
have the right to remain silent, but that you don't have the
right to remain silent and it can be used against you." It is
interesting to note that if she had voted to convict the
defendant, she still would have had the same "criminal" opinions.
Would she have been placed on trial for her opinions under those
circumstances? Judge Nieto was unwilling to answer any questions,
including this one, until after Kriho's sentencing on March 7.

JURY NULLIFICATION VS. JURY TAMPERING
Nieto acknowledged jury nullification in his opinion,
stating "No juror can be punished for their vote in deciding a
case. Even if the juror's vote amounts to jury nullification and
flies in the face of the evidence and the law, they cannot be
punished." However, he has circumvented this timehonored
principle, and convicted Kriho for a vague and previously unknown
'thought crime.' A crime that you can apparently only be charged
with if you, as a juror, vote against the wishes of the court,
and especially if you are a hold out in the jury room. If you
vote according to the wishes of the court, or if the other jurors
vote with you, there's nothing to be charged with. Under these
circumstances, wouldn't a juror be intimidated into voting how
the court wanted or risk facing criminal charges for having an
undisclosed opinion about something?
"This new legal duty was invented by this court for Laura
Kriho," said Grant, "The verdict has created a new legal theory,
and certainly we were not aware of it at the time of the trial.
The theory is that there is a legal duty to volunteer your
political beliefs if you think the court would be interested in
them, even though they don't ask you."
Red Beckman believes that the Kriho case is going to be one
of the cases that gets the current practice of jury selection by
screening potential jurors, eliminated from the judicial process.
"It will get the question out to the people whether the
prosecutors and judges have the kind of power they're using.
We're talking about a very, very fundamental legal principle
here. A constitutional principle."
That would be the principle of an impartial jury of your
peers. To judges and prosecutors, this means uneducated, mindless
robots who accept authority unquestioningly and are easily
manipulated emotionally, who will rubberstamp the wishes of the
court. To FIJA and others, it means intelligent, knowledgeable
people who can recognize a bad law, a bad judge, a bad defendant,
a bad prosecutor, and vote according to their conscience and the
constitution, rather than according to the instructions of a
judge.
"I just don't think the court has any right to purge the
jury of all jurors who think independently, and that's really
what this case is all about," said Grant. "I don't believe that
all the questions that the court is suggesting it can ask [of
jurors] are proper. I don't think the court has the authority."
Beckman agrees, "They're jury tampering and they're trying
to get it so people are hesitant about serving on juries. The
effect is that they're going to poison the jury pool."
Kriho will appeal. Grant thinks the chances are good that
her conviction will be overturned. He believes this verdict
"...sets a very dangerous precedent. It gives a license to
prosecutors and judges to subject jurors to an inquisition during
jury selection. Holding people liable for not volunteering [their
opinions] is an impossible standard to hold jurors to. I think
the appellate courts will recognize the first amendment problems
with this opinion."
Laura Kriho probably summed it up best when she asked, "Is
it OK to prosecute jurors for what they didn't say to questions
that weren't asked of them?" Well, is it?

SIDEBAR
Laura will continue to need money to appeal this conviction.
Donations may be sent to the Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund c/o
Paul Grant, Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134.

Suzanne Shell is the author of Profane Justice: A Comprehensive
Guide to Asserting Your Parental Rights, which deals with
preventing and successfully fighting false child abuse charges.
To order the book call (800) 4473081 ext 7794.
END OF ARTICLE