|
|
|
Prosecution
Threatens Jury Independence In a case that threatens to destroy trial by jury, a Gilpin County, Colorado juror has been charged with contempt of court for deliberating "improperly" in the jury room. The juror is Laura Kriho, a Gilpin County resident who was summoned for jury duty on May 13th. Ms. Kriho was seated on the case of a 19 year old woman charged with felony possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine). The trial lasted for two days after which the jurors were sent to the jury room to deliver a verdict. The jury was hung on the possession charge. Ms. Kriho was the lone holdout juror based on her reasonable doubt the defendant was guilty. The eleven other jurors wanted to convict the defendant. Jury deliberations became quite heated and, at one point, Ms. Kriho discussed the sentence the defendant could receive if convicted. One of the jurors sent a note to the presiding judge, Judge Kenneth Barnhill, stating the Ms. Kriho had discussed the defendant's possible sentence. Based on this note, Judge Barnhill declared a mistrial. On July 19th Ms. Kriho was served with contempt papers. The citation alleges that Ms. Kriho should be held in contempt of court for 1) disobedience to an order of the court, 2) obstructing the administration of justice, and 3) committing perjury. The citation alleges that Ms. Kriho disobeyed a court order by discussing sentences in her deliberations. The Judge had instructed the jury to deliberate only on the facts of the case and not to consider sentences. However, Ms. Kriho insists that she ultimately voted to acquit due to reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt based on the facts of the case. Paul Stanley, the prosecutor in the case, alleges that Ms. Kriho committed perjury due to her failure to disclose a felony drug conviction that she received in 1984. However, Ms. Kriho was never asked during voir dire about her arrest record. Further, Ms. Kriho does not have any prior convictions. She was charged with possession of LSD when she was 19, signed a negotiated plea, received a deferred sentence, satisfied the conditions of probation and had the deferred sentence terminated. No conviction was ever entered, none ever existed. Several of the jurors were interviewed after the mistrial was declared. They stated that during jury deliberations Ms. Kriho discussed some ideas about jury nullification and the rights of jurors to vote according to their conscience. They also stated that Ms. Kriho had discussed her opinion that drug cases should be handled by the family and the community, not the courts. "I tried to do my job as juror well," Ms. Kriho said. "I had never been on a jury before, and the whole experience was unique and very stressful. Now I feel I am being unfairly singled out and punished for coming up with the wrong verdict." Libertarian Party members have rallied to Ms. Kriho's defense saying she is a victim of a tyrannical judicial system that seeks to squelch all independence among jurors. They say Barnhill's decision to slap contempt charges on a juror is outrageous. Ms. Kriho's attorney, Paul Grant, a former official of the national Libertarian Party, has asked that the contempt charges be dropped. He warns that the prosecution of his client threatens to destroy the jury system. "Jurors must be able to deliberate independently of the judge, without the threat of criminal prosecution hanging over their heads," said Grant. Legal experts in both academia and the judicial system acknowledge that Judge Barnhill's move is highly unusual, but they also say it's legal. "A jury isn't legally free to operate in every respect that they would want to," said Kevin Reitz, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School. "It is in the judge's power to give an instruction, and the jury members are required to follow." But legal experts also acknowledge that juries have the power to act according to their conscience and nullify laws they disagree with. When the jury returns a not guilty verdict, the judge has no real power to question the decision. The right to trial by jury, as provided by the Sixth Amendment, was deemed important by the Founding Fathers, specifically because it prevents abuses of power by overzealous judges and prosecutors. If jurors are prosecuted for their deliberations, no defendant can ever expect a fair and impartial trial by jury. Ms. Kriho's two day trial was held in early October before Judge Henry Nieto. Paul Stanley, the prosecuting attorney on the drug possession case, is also prosecuting Ms. Kriho's case. The judge stated he would rule later on whether Ms. Kriho is guilty of contempt. At press time no verdict had been given. Ms. Kriho faces up to six months in jail and fines if convicted. This is an important case for all who value their constitutional rights. Legal expenses and expert witness fees for this trial could exceed $10,000. It is important to fight it well. (Contributions are not tax deductible. All unused contributions will be returned.) Donations for Laura Kriho's legal defense may be made to:
Pat Michl is a Pierce County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney and LPWS activist.
|
