The Runaway Juror

from the Editorial Board of the Denver Post
Tues., March 11, 1996
Feedback _strongly_ encouraged: letters@denverpost.com

Life doesn't always imitate art -- just ask Laura Kriho. In John Grisham's best-selling book "The Runaway Jury", a former law student conspires to get on the jury in a tobacco liability case
and manages to serve what he believes to be the broader interests of justice while getting rich in the process.

In the real-life tale, Kriho's zeal to get on the jury in a 1996 Gilpin County drug case caused her to deliberately withhold key information from District Judge Kenneth E. Barnhill. But instead of winning a fortune like Grisham's fictional juror, Kriho ended up owing a $1,200 fine after Boulder (sic) District Judge Henry E. Nieto found her guilty of contempt of court for deliberate and considered failure to disclose her own prior conviction for possession of LSD and membership in an
organization committed to legalizing drugs.

Nieto's opinion is a model of clarity and logic. As he concludes, "This case is not now and has never been about how Ms. Kriho voted during jury deliberations. This case is about whether Ms. Kriho misled the trial court and trial attorneys about important matters during the jury selection process with the intent to remain on the jury and obstruct the legal process." That is exactly what this case is about -- and exactly what Kriho did.

Kriho claimed she was never directly asked for such information -- because she was in the gallery, not the jury box, when that charge was made to the jury. That's balderdash. As Nieto ruled, "She and all jurors were given an oath by the trial court to truthfully answer questions on their ability to serve as fair and impartial jurors... The trial court advised all of the jury panel, including those in the gallery, that it was important for everyone to listen to the question of the trial court and the
lawyers because it was possible that jurors in the gallery would be called forward to replace jurors in the box... Every replacement juror called was asked if they had heard the prior question and they were given an opportunity to comment on any of the topics discussed."

Kriho has become a hero to some followers of the ""jury nullification" movement -- who hold that jurors have the power to decide cases in ways contrary to the evidence and the law -- because, as Judge Nieto noted, she "takes a strong position in favor of jury nullification, arguing that such a right is necessary for juries to oppose a tyrannical government." But as Nieto concluded: "This case is not now and has never been about how Ms. Kriho voted during jury deliberations. The real issue
(is) Ms. Kriho's conduct during jury selection, not jury deliberation. It is one thing to laud the efforts of a jury fairly picked and honestly chosen to decide a case in conformity with their conscience. It is quite another thing for a juror to deliberately mislead the court in an effort to obstruct the
administration of justice."

Precisely so. The evidence is overwhelming that Kriho deliberately misled the court so that she could carry on her crusade against the drug laws from within the jury box. In so doing, she richly earned her fine for violating her oath to decide the case fairly and impartially. For his part, Nieto was wise to limit punishment to just a fine. Jailing Kriho would have elevated her to martyr status and given her message a dignity it does not deserve.

CORRECTION:
Printed in Denver Post (March 12, 1997)
"Laura Kriho was the subject of a Tuesday editorial on her recent sentencing for obstruction of justice. In an earlier, 1985 case, she pleaded guilty to a felony charge of possession of LSD and was thereafter granted a deferred judgment and sentence. Kriho is involved with an organization that advocates modification of Colorado's hemp and marijuana laws."

Browse more of the JRP site
You Can Help!