Background on Kriho Case

Distributed by the Jury Rights Project
Box 729, Nederland, CO 80466
Updated: October 1997

Juror Convicted of Contempt of Court
Colorado v. Laura Kriho
Gilpin District Court Case # 96-CR-91
Colorado Court of Appeals Case # 97 CA 700

In a case that threatens to destroy trial by jury, formerjuror Laura Kriho was convicted of contempt of court for failingto volunteer information about her political beliefs and
knowledge during jury selection. Kriho is the first victim of anew crime -- failure to volunteer answers to questions thatweren't asked of her during jury selection.

Kriho is a resident of Gilpin County, which, along with Jefferson County, comprises Colorado's First Judicial District. Kriho was summonsed for jury duty in May of 1996.

Jury Selection

The case to be heard was of a nineteen-year-old woman charged with three crimes. The most serious was felony possession of methamphetamine. The voir dire (jury selection) process took almost four hours. While Kriho was in the audience, other jurors in the jury box were asked over 350 different questions. Kriho was one of the last jurors called to the jury box. She was asked few specific questions. One general one was, "You listened to all of our topics; would you have answered anything differently?"

The first time Kriho was asked this by the judge, she volunteered information about a recent civil court experience. Later asked the same question by the prosecutor, Kriho, bored by this apparently meaningless question, replied no, imitating replies from several previous jurors. She was selected to serve on the jury and listened to two days of testimony.

Jury Deliberations

During jury deliberations, the jury reached verdicts of guilty and not guilty on the less serious charges. However, it proved difficult to reach a verdict on the possession charge. Kriho was the only juror who didn't want to convict the defendant; she said she had reasonable doubts. Kriho argued the prosecution hadn't proved the defendant knew she had possessed the methamphetamine (knowing possession is a required element of the law). The defendant had said someone else put it in her purse without her knowledge.

Kriho and the other jurors discussed the evidence extensively, but no one was persuaded to the other's side. The deliberations became very heated. Kriho became the focus of verbal attacks and ridicule from the other jurors. She tried to defend her vote, but became frustrated and upset.
In the heat of the deliberations, Kriho cried out that the defendant could receive several years in jail if the jury convicted her. Kriho also spoke about the doctrine of jury nullification and the historic right of jurors to vote according to their conscience. In addition, Kriho stated that it was a shame drug possession cases couldn't be handled by the family and community, rather than the courts.

These statements, and Kriho's refusal to change her vote, angered another juror so much that, without the knowledge of other jurors, he sent a note describing these statements to presiding Judge Kenneth Barnhill. Based only on this anonymous note, Judge Barnhill became furious and declared a mistrial.

The Investigation of Laura Kriho

The judge and prosecutor James Stanley were so enraged at losing a conviction that the DA had his investigator inquire who the hold-out juror was. Detectives investigated Kriho and
discovered that she had received a deferred judgment on the charge of possession of LSD in 1985. After Kriho completed two years of probation, the charge was supposed to be wiped from her
record. Kriho believed that it had been. The D.A.'s office also discovered that Kriho was an organizer for the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project, a group trying to reform cannabis and hemp
laws in Colorado.

Retaliation Against a Juror

Kriho was charged with contempt of court in August of 1996, becoming the first juror in over 300 years to be prosecuted for "improper deliberations."

The Trial of Laura Kriho

Kriho was represented by attorney Paul Grant. Her case was heard by former prosecutor and First Judicial District Chief Judge Henry Nieto, who assigned himself to the case after Judge Barnhill honored a defense request to recuse himself. In pre-trial rulings, Judge Nieto denied Grant's request for a continuance of the trial date to raise money for defense experts and to raise constitutional issues by motion. Nieto said it was a "simple" case and the defense should be ready. Judge Nieto also denied a motion to disqualify Stanley as the prosecutor. Nieto denied the defense the right to call either Stanley or Judge Barnhill as witnesses.

In addition, Judge Nieto denied Kriho a jury trial. A Colorado defendant is only entitled to a jury trial in a contempt case if the sentence might include more than six months in jail. Since Stanley agreed not to seek more than six months, Judge Nieto denied a jury trial.

Kriho was tried on October 1 and 2, 1996, only six weeks after her arraignment. Her trial was attended by over 100 people and was covered by local and national media. Nine other jurors
testified about how they deliberated in the jury room. All remembered that Kriho had discussed the evidence in the case as well as made remarks about jury rights and the drug laws. At the end of the trial, in a surprise decision, Judge Nieto said he needed legal briefs from both attorneys explaining the applicable law. The briefs were filed on October 9. Normally, a decision could be expected within a few weeks. However, it appeared that this was no longer a "simple" case
for Judge Nieto. He deliberated on the case for over four months!

On February 10, 1997, Judge Nieto finally issued a nine-page ruling in which he cleared Kriho of two aspects of the contempt charge, but convicted her of contempt of court for "obstructing the administration of justice".

Full Test of Judge Nieto's Ruling

Kriho was charged with contempt of court for three reasons:

1) Disobedience to an order of the court.
Judge Nieto ruled that jury instructions (i.e., not to discuss sentences) were not court orders. However, he stated that a judge's admonitions to the jury on how to behave (i.e., don't
discuss the case or do outside research) were court orders. But since the prosecutor never introduced transcripts containing the judge's admonitions into evidence, Judge Nieto ruled in favor of Kriho.

2) Committing perjury by lying under oath.
Judge Nieto ruled in favor of Kriho, stating that there are specific conditions which have to be met in order for perjury to constitute contempt of court. These specific conditions were not met in this case.

3) Obstructing the administration of justice.
This aspect of the contempt charge was always the most ill-defined of the three. At Kriho's trial, defense attorney Grant asked several times for the judge or prosecutor to clarify
what action or statement of Kriho's constituted "obstructing the administration of justice." No answer was given before or during her trial.

However, it was this aspect of the contempt charge that Kriho was convicted of violating.

Judge Nieto ruled that Kriho, during jury selection, deliberately withheld her attitudes about certain drug laws, her involvement in hemp legalization activities, and her knowledge of
a juror's power to determine questions of law as well as fact. By failing to volunteer this information, Kriho "obstructed the process of selecting a fair and impartial jury".

Judge Nieto writes, "The selection of jurors who have open minds and who have not preconceived the verdict is essential for a fair trial. Ms. Kriho's lack of candor about her experiences and attitudes led to the selection of a jury doomed to mistrial from the start."

The Facts of the Case

All the voir dire questions quoted in Judge Nieto's ruling were made well before Kriho was called to the jury box, while she was still sitting in the audience. Kriho never lied to the court or was deceptive in any of her answers. Kriho was convicted of failing to volunteer answers to questions the prosecutor later wished he would have asked.

In his ruling, Judge Nieto stated that Kriho was being convicted for her behavior during jury selection, not jury deliberations. However, the contempt citation quoted many statements Kriho made in the jury room. To many, this seems to be a malicious prosecution by an angry prosecutor who got sloppy during jury selection.

Clearly, had Kriho voted guilty, she would never have been investigated and prosecuted.

Kriho's Penalty

Although Kriho faced up to six months in jail, Judge Nieto decided that he wasn't quite ready to jail jurors. Kriho was fined $1200 on March 7, 1997. Because of the important Constitutional issues involved and to help protect other jurors, she plans to appeal the conviction.

New Crime for Jurors

"This ruling creates a new legal duty in which a juror is obliged to volunteer confessions of any beliefs or experiences they have any thought the court might want to know," says Paul Grant, Kriho's attorney. "The court is trying to intimidate anyone with an independent mind. We should all be very concerned about this case," he adds.

The ruling is seen as an unprecedented assault on jury rights and the independence of juries from judges. It has national ramifications for potential jurors and for defendants and plaintiffs seeking a fair and impartial jury. Jurors will be risking prosecution if, during deliberations, they reveal an opinion a judge or prosecutor might have wanted "volunteered" during jury selection. Jurors will understandably now be reluctant to deliberate freely and will fear to vote against the majority lest they be investigated and prosecuted later. A fair trial is impossible if jurors are serving under
such intimidation.

Until this ruling is overturned, the Colorado Legal Eagles, a local legal advocacy group, is advising jurors to ask for court-appointed counsel to represent them throughout jury selection.

Kriho's conviction is being appealed.

Browse more of the JRP site
You Can Help!