High Times, July 1997
Email: hteditor@hightimes.com
Web: http://www.hightimes.com
What you say in the jury room can and will be used against you, by Stephen Witt
GILPIN COUNTY, CO -- Is it the wave of the future, or just the exercise of a long-dormant right of citizens to nullify unjust laws?
Either way, the recent conviction and fining of Colorado hemp activist Laura Kriho, 32, for "obstruction of justice" while doing her civic duty as a juror, has become a cause celebre for legal eagles and rights watchers around the country.
Kriho, a University of Colorado research assistant from Nederland, was called into Gilpin County District Court for jury duty along with 40 others in May 1996, for the trial of a 19-year-old woman charged with three offenses, the most significant of which was possession of methamphetamine. During the voir dire panel-selection process, Kriho listened to nearly 350 questions aimed at other prospective jurors before she was interviewed. "I thought I was going to go home," she recalled. "They asked me a total of 21 questions." Among these was, "You listened to all of our topics; would you have answered anything differently?" Tired from a long day, Kriho answered "no" -- and was picked to serve on the jury.
The trial lasted two days, and when the
case went to the jury a guilty verdict was quickly reached on the lesser
charges. Kriho, however, held out obdurately against conviction on the
methamphetamine charge. There was reasonable doubt, she reasoned, because
Colorado law requires "knowing possession" for conviction, and
the defendant had testified that the drug was put in her purse by someone
else, and she'd thought it was money. "We talked about the evidence
for a long time," Kriho recalls. "Some of the other jury members
became mean, abusive
and downright nasty. I was close to tears. It wasn't fun at all."
During the fruitless deliberations, Kriho
asked fellow jury members if they understood that the defendant was facing
four to eight years in prison if convicted, and suggested it was a shame
that drug cases are handled in a courtroom rather than in the family and
community. She also advised the other jurors about the doctrine of "jury
nullification," the historical right of jurors to vote according to
their consciences, even to declare a guilty person innocent on the grounds
that the applicable statute is itself unjust.
At this point another juror passed a note about what Kriho was saying to Judge Kenneth Barnhill, who became so enraged that he declared a mistrial.
While Kriho thought the ordeal was over following the trial, the frustrated prosecutor, James Stanley, undertook to investigate her. He found out that she was an organizer of the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project.
So in July last year, a county sheriff arrived
at Kriho's home and served her with a three-count citation for contempt
of court: disobeying an order of the court, committing perjury by lying
under oath, and obstructing the administration of justice. The case quickly
provoked attention, as it was one of the few times in American history
in which a juror has faced charges. The trial last October was attended
by more than 150 people, including local and national media. First Judicial
District
Chief Judge Henry Nieto presided, Stanley prosecuted and attorney Paul
Grant of Parker represented Laura Kriho.
In February, Judge Nieto issued a nine-page ruling that found Kriho guilty only on the charge of obstructing the administration of justice. The judge's reasoning was that during jury selection, she must have deliberately withheld information about her personal opinions of certain drug laws, her active involvement in cannabis issues and her stand on the issue of jury nullification. He fined her $1,200.
"A thousand years ago," defense attorney Grant points out, "attacks on juries or jurors were punishable by hanging the judge. King Alfred hanged about 44 judges in one year for depriving people of jury rights, and in 1776, British attacks on juries' rights led to a revolution. The question is, what will our response be in 1997?"
Kriho plans to appeal.
(Minor correction: Kriho was convicted of contempt of court for obstructing the administration of justice. The alleged "obstruction" was one aspect of the contempt charge. She was cleared of the other two aspects. -- JRP)
Browse more of the JRP site
You Can Help!
Contact Us:
Jury Rights Project