Two Stories from The Mountain-Ear

by Jeffrey V. Smith
October 4, 1996

JUDGE HEARS EVIDENCE IN GILPIN 'JUROR RIGHTS' TRIAL
JUROR TRIAL IS CALLED 'MOCKERY OF JUSTICE'

After two days of proceedings and several motions to dismiss the case were denied, the contempt of court trial against Gilpin County resident Laura Kriho for her actions while on a
jury in the same court last May concluded Wednesday afternoon. The judge will not render an opinion about the case until after attorneys on both sides file briefs, he has a chance to
review them, and an agreed upon time is set to reconvene. Both attorneys have until Oct. 9 to file the briefs. Briefs are documents that explain to the court each side's view of the facts
of a case and the applicable law.

Kriho sat as a juror on a trial in May charging a young woman with possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia and criminal impersonation. No verdict was reached in that trial, because a mistrial was declared by presiding District Court Judge Kenneth Barnhill after he decided the jury had been tainted by Kriho's actions.

During opening statements Tuesday, prosecuting attorney James Stanley, who also prosecuted the case in which Kriho was a juror, explained that Kriho was on trial for "three basic reasons." She was accused by Stanley of lying during the jury selection process by not disclosing her views about drug laws, her unwillingness to follow the law, and her involvement in a prior felony drug conviction.

She also was accused of violating a court order not to discuss or research the case outside the evidence presented in the court room. Overnight during the trial in which she served as
a juror, Kriho looked up possible penalties for the drug possession charge and revealed them to the other jurors against instructions issued by Judge Barnhill.

The third "reason" for putting Kriho on trial, as explained by Stanley, was for obstruction of the trial process. He said that Kriho had an agenda to become a juror on the trial to challenge drug laws.

Defense attorney Paul Grant said that the evidence would show Kriho is being punished for simply thinking for herself and holding her ground when bullied by other jurors.

Stanley began building his case Tuesday by calling several other jurors from the drug possession trial to the stand. By asking all of them similar questions, Stanley showed that all jurors were told several times about the importance of following the law, to disregard any possible punishment while deciding guilt, and to speak up about any personal problems or past experience with the law. They all said that they felt in some way or another Kriho had been less than honest during the jury selection process.

Also, the five jurors called to testify for the prosecution, Russell Carlson, Betty Jane Hammock, Dan Cooper, James Davis and Ronald Ramsey, explained that Kriho's actions in the jury room concerned them. The jurors said Kriho's opinion that drug cases should be decided outside the court system, her actions in looking up drug penalties on the Internet and a discussion by Kriho about jury rights issues bothered them and made them upset.

During cross examination of the jurors by Grant, it was established that over 350 questions had been asked of potential jurors prior to Kriho being called as a replacement juror. As replacement jurors were brought into the jury box, they were asked simply if they had heard the questions asked and if they would answer them differently. Everyone except Kriho, who volunteered information about a previous court experience, said no.

It was also pointed out through witness testimony that several jurors, not just Kriho, changed their minds about guilt at various times throughout deliberations and that although other jurors were skeptical, Kriho did attempt to show why she had reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.

During the trial it was shown that an unsigned note written by a juror asking hypothetical questions concerning juror conduct caused Judge Barnhill to declare a mistrial. The note,
which asked if a juror could be dismissed for various reasons, was not investigated by the judge prior to declaring a mistrial. According to Kriho, some information on the note was false and it
was written by one juror who was upset with her at the time. Testimony from defense witnesses showed that Kriho did attempt to persuade jurors that reasonable doubt existed as to
whether the defendant knowingly had drugs in her possession. They also substantiated Kriho's claim she was not specifically asked questions she is accused of lying about.

Testimony from Kriho showed she had previous knowledge of sentencing and that Judge Barnhill and the prosecuting attorney were visibly angry at how the trial was concluded. It also showed
that she did not meet the qualifications to be dismissed as a juror. Also, according to Kriho, juror rights were never explained so she had no idea she might be prosecuted for her actions. "I felt I was a fair and impartial juror," she said. "I came in good faith."

Kriho said she did not even want to serve as a juror as she had to hitchhike to the court house.
She explained that if fingerprints of the defendant were found on the evidence she would have voted to convict, but otherwise felt the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt if the girl knew she was in possession of drugs. She also said that she stood her ground when all 11 other jurors were pushing for a guilty verdict.

During the trial, it was pointed out that Kriho gave another juror a pamphlet after thhe mistrial was declared explaining jury rights and support for jury nullification issues through the voting of one's conscience. The information upset the juror who in turn gave it to the judge.

The information led some jurors to believe Kriho had an agenda from the start to hang the jury. She said she only consulted the information to learn what her rights as a juror were and the she had no contact with the organizaion which printed it.

Despite several implications from the defense to the contrary, Judge Nieto said that how Kriho voted in the jury room will not be part of his consideration in determining whether she is guilty of contempt.

In what is being called a mockery of justice, vindictive and outrageous, Gilpin resident Laura Kriho was brought to trial Tuesday for allegedly committing perjury and contempt of court while serving on a jury last May.

According to Kriho's attorney, the case appears to be an "outgrowth" of a movement among judges nationwide to make sure jurors feel they do not have a right to judge or question the law
and think for themselves. "That is not true." The attorney said that since Kriho was a single, hold-out juror she is being punished. Had she said the defendant was guilty, she would not have been brought to trial, he said.

Kriho's attorney Paul Grant said Kriho is being accused of obstruction of justice simply by speaking her mind and holding her ground. "This is an obnoxious process, we're putting the jury on trial and that's improper. It can only be done to attack a juror and not a verdict."

Kriho sat as a juror in a drug possession case earlier this year which was declared a mistrial. The mistrial, declared by Judge Kenneth Barnhill, resulted from allegations of Kriho's actions in the jury room, disregarding instructions of the judge and lying during the jury selection process. According to testimony in Kriho's trial, Judge Barnhill did not investigate the allegations before declaring the mistrial.

Other jurors who served with Kriho during the drug possession trial said that Kriho discussed the right of a jury to "nullify" laws by voting their conscience. They said she explained her opinion that families and communities, not the court room, were the best place to decide drug cases. Also, it
was disclosed after the trial that Kriho had a prior felony drug conviction which was not reported during jury selection. Kriho, who is completely surprised and "shocked" to find herself on trial, claims she was never specifically asked the questions she has been accused of answering falsely, and that she was merely voicing her opinion and speaking her mind in the jury room. She says that any allegations that she had an agenda and was out to change drug laws is completely false.

"Basically I feel like I'm being punished for voting not-guilty," Kriho said. "I could have said whatever I wanted in the jury room, but if I had come back with a guilty verdict I would not be here today. I'm absolutely being singled out." Allegations that she disobeyed the judge are being denied by Kriho in that instructions to a jury are merely used for guidance during deliberations and not considered orders. Kriho has explained that she had reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant and that the other jurors did not believe her doubts were reasonable. It has been pointed out that she was verbally "attacked" by other jurors, who appeared to be in a hurry to leave, during the deliberation process.

The case, which is highly irregular and the first of its type in over 300 years, is being followed by many people interested in its national and civil rights implications. Also, it has been alleged that the proceedings against Kriho have poisoned the pool of jurors in Gilpin County.

Because the trial calls for jurors from the drug possession case to testify about what happened in the jury room, one of the foundations of the American justice system assuring confidentiality of deliberations is being threatened. According to many legal experts, the case threatens to
destroy the entire concept of trial by jury. It has been argued that there would be no point to a jury if they had to do what the judge wanted or be faced with prosecution themselves. The right
to a trial by jury, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the U.S., is meant to prevent abuses of power by judges and prosecutors. It is thought that if jurors can be prosecuted for their deliberations, a fair and impartial jury is impossible. Prior to the start of the trial, First Judicial District Chief Judge Henry Nieto assigned himself to the case after the original judge, Barnhill, excused himself.

Nieto ruled, prior to the trial, that he would judge the case and not a jury when Deputy District Attorney James Stanley agreed not to seek a jail term of more than six months. Although it was suggested by Kriho's attorney Paul Grant that the trial was complex and a motion was filed to delay the trial to give the defense more time to prepare, Judge Nieto denied it. This decision was found to be so egregious by Grant that he appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Cournt under an emergency provision.

Nieto ruled, prior to the trial, that he would judge the case and not a jury when Deputy District Attorney James Stanley agreed not to seek a jail term more than six months. A jury trial was originally granted at Kriho's arraignment in August, but Stanley said he changed his mind about punishment. A jury would have been necessary for a punishment greater than six months in jail.

It was argued by Grant that since theories from a recently published article by Gilpin County Judge Frederic Rodgers on how to prosecute "obstructionist" jurors appeared in the contempt citation, the defense had a right to know what communication occurred between Judge Barnhill, other judges and the prosecution. Judge Nieto denied the request.

A request to appoint a special prosecutor was denied. Grant said that since Stanley was the prosecutor in the case in which Kriho was a juror, he should be available as a witness. Evidence was presented that although Stanley's actions in the courtroom are part of the record, he did have contact with the jurors off the record.

Several motions to dismiss the case, due to its frivolous nature, have been denied throughout the trial. Due to the nature of the case, a local legal rights group, the Colorado Legal Eagles, is warning Gilpin county residents of "a serious threat to the judicial system in their county." The
group wants Gilpin residents to be aware of their legal rights and to seek court-ordered counsel before answering quesions during jruy selelction. The group also warns that no one will be advised that anything they say can and will be used against them even though it is possible.

Grant also feels the jury pool has been poisoned "to some exent" in that jurors will feel intimidated to speak their minds in the jury room. "Who wants to serve on a jury with a threat of prosecution hanging over your head?" Grant said it is the intent to publicize this case nationally by the judges so theat jurors nationally will be intimidated.

The actions of the court are also meant to eliminate hung juries in Grant's mind. "This sends a message that you better go along with the majority or you will be criminally prosecuted."

The Mountain-Ear
P.O. Box 99
Nederland, CO 80466
Phone: (303) 258-7075
Fax: (303) 258-3547
Email: mtn-ear@indra.com

Browse more of the JRP site
You Can Help!