P.O. Box 729, Nederland, CO 80466, Vmail: (303) 448-5640
|
P.O. Box 729, Nederland, CO 80466, Vmail: (303) 448-5640 |
|
|
For immediate release: April 29, 1999 Contact: Jury Rights Project (303) 448-5640 Juror Contempt Conviction Reversed [Denver] – The Colorado Court of Appeals today issued an order reversing the contempt of court conviction against former juror Laura Kriho (Court of Appeals # 97CA0700). In a highly unusual case, Kriho had been convicted in February 1997 by Gilpin County District Court Judge Henry Nieto of contempt of court for failing to volunteer answers to questions that were not asked of her during jury selection. Kriho, a 34-year-old Gilpin County resident, served as a juror in a methamphetamine possession case in 1996. She was the lone holdout for acquittal, arguing that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. After it was clear her arguments about the evidence were not convincing the other jurors, she resorted to “improper” arguments about a juror’s right to evaluate the law (jury nullification) and the severity of the penalty the defendant would face if convicted. These improper arguments were reported to the judge by another juror. With no further investigation into this anonymous juror’s allegations, the judge in the case declared a mistrial. Kriho was subsequently investigated by the D.A.’s office. The D.A. found that she had received a deferred judgement (not a conviction) on a charge of possession of LSD twelve years earlier, and that she worked for the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project, a group promoting reform of cannabis and hemp laws. After a three-month deliberation process, Judge Nieto convicted Kriho of contempt for failing to volunteer this information to the court, even though she wasn’t asked any questions about these issues. Judge Nieto fined her $1200, and Kriho appealed the conviction. Judge Sandra Rothenberg, writing the majority opinion for the Court of Appeals, stated that Kriho’s conviction should be reversed because the court should not have considered any evidence from jury room deliberations in Kriho’s trial. Citing a 1997 U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals case, U.S. v. Thomas, Judge Rothenberg wrote: “We thus adopt the conclusion in Thomas that the secrecy of jury deliberations is a ‘core principle’ in the American system of justice, that excursions into the jury deliberation process are anathema to our system, and that jury secrecy may be invaded only under the most carefully delineated circumstances. …The central principle of Thomas is that the need to preserve the secrecy of jury deliberations requires an investigation of juror misconduct to cease once ‘any possibility’ arises that the juror is acting during deliberations based on his or her view of the sufficiency of the evidence.” The record shows extensive evidence that Kriho was one of the most diligent jurors on the jury in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence presented in the methamphetamine trial. Judge Rothenberg also stated that invasion of jury room privacy was dangerous because it would “chill the willingness of our citizens to serve on juries.” Judge Rothenberg addressed the issue of whether the trial court’s contempt finding
could be sustained without considering testimony concerning jury deliberations.
Excluding evidence from jury room deliberations, Judge Rothenberg writes, “The
People's evidence consisted only of the following: Judge Rothenberg writes, “We conclude that this remaining evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is insufficient as a matter of law to find Kriho in contempt based on her alleged failure to reveal that she opposed the enforcement of drug laws through the courts, and her alleged failure to reveal that she did not intend to follow the judge's instructions on the law.” Rothenberg also agreed that Kriho was “not under a duty to disclose” her association with the Hemp Initiative Project. However, the appellate court ruled that the Kriho case could be remanded for a new trial on the “one remaining allegation” that Kriho intentionally withheld information about her prior LSD deferred judgement, even though Judge Rothenberg admitted that “there exist certain ambiguities concerning the legal effect of a deferred judgment.” If Kriho were retried, the trial court would have to show whether Kriho’s “failure to disclose the information was deliberately done to obstruct justice, or whether, as she has maintained, she believed the prior proceeding had been expurgated and that she had no duty to disclose it. . . .(‘A man should not be sent to jail for forgetfulness.’)” About the decision in her favor, Kriho states, “I’m happy my conviction has been reversed. I hope the courts get the message that what they did to me was wrong. I answered all the questions they asked me truthfully, and I never tried to hide anything to ‘sneak onto the jury’, as they alleged I did. I’ve never heard of anyone trying to ‘sneak onto a jury.’ It’s ludicrous. “ “I also hope that this does not make jurors even more reluctant to serve on a jury or to deliberate freely in the jury room. The Court of Appeals has sent a clear message that jury room deliberations are off-limits to prosecutors. I’ve always thought that was the original reason behind my prosecution: to make jurors fearful to vote against the majority for fear of later prosecution. Hopefully, the Medieval practice of prosecuting jurors based on how they deliberated has seen it’s modern beginning and end in my case.” Kriho’s attorney, Paul Grant, comments, “This decision is a victory to those who value the right to trial by jury. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals did not go far enough in protecting the rights of jurors to exercise their judgement in the courtroom free of judicial intimidation or interference. We wish the Court of Appeals had provided greater protections for independent-minded jurors like Laura to serve on juries and limited the power of the prosecution to eliminate all jurors who might be distrustful or suspicious of the government.” Text of Court of Appeals decision: Background on Kriho case: Prosecution Contacts:
|
|
Back to the Jury Rights Project Old Page Back to the Jury Rights Project New Page |
