Free the Rollinsville One

First, if you\\\'re going to hold out in a criminal case, you\\\'d better convince at least one other person to join you. They probably won\\\'t string up two or more, but if you stand alone, you\\\'ll hang alone.

Second, as a potential juror you apparently have fewer rights than the defendant. The defendant doesn\\\'t have to say anything to anybody; a would-be juror is expected to answer not only direct questions but to remember, and reply to, questions asked of other people earlier in the day.

Kriho was the sole holdout against conviction in a Gilpin County drug case las May. What\\\'s more, other jurors told the court she had challenged the validity of drug laws during deliberations. An angry Judge Kenneth Barnhill declared a mistrial.

After a little research, Barnhill had the state charge her with obstructing justice for failing to disclose a 1985 case in which she pled guilty to LSD possession and was granted deferred judgement. Not, it should be noted, that she was asked directly about her criminal record. She was a late selection and was supposed to have listened to and remembered questions asked earlier.

Her purpose, according to the court, was to get on the jury and thereby help get the defendant off regardless of the facts. Now there\\\'s a switch; most of us will plead prejudice, job demands, sick relatives, child care problems -- what ever it takes to get us out of jury duty. That\\\'s the American way. But Kriho was a bit too eager to serve. Now she must pay the price.

Gilpin District Judge Henry Nieto, who was assigned the case, cleared Kriho of perjury and disobedience charges but declared her guilty of \\\"obstructing justice.\\\" Sentencing -- she is subject to fines and jail time -- is scheduled for March 7.

What\\\'s really at work in this highly unusual case? We hope we\\\'re wrong, but it looks like revenge. It\\\'s clear that had Kriho joined the other 11 jurors in voting to convict, the state wouldn\\\'t have cared one iota what convictions and prejudices she may have failed to disclose.

Sure, Kriho has been an active hempie -- a strange but not uncommon breed in our mountains. But it\\\'s not the business of the court to ascertain jurors\\\' political philosophies. When you command their appearance, you should take what you get and be grateful for it.

After all, jury service is a sort of civilian draft. There\\\'s no good reason jurors should have to supply much more than name, rank, Social Security number -- and whether or not they have a direct stake or interest in the case, such as knowing the attorneys or principals in the case. That\\\'s all the law requires.

But lawyers and judges seem to prefer Know-Nothings, blank slates who neither read nor think, uncritical accepters of the status quo -- and not just in high profiles cases. That\\\'s why they often spend a lot of time delving into jurors\\\' attitudes and beliefs. Jurors should be entitled to refuse to answer such questions.

Nieto seems to be creating a new legal duty in which a juror is obliged to confess not only to past deeds but to current thought crimes. In a drug case he\\\'d just as soon reject author William F. Buckley Jr. and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke as Kriho -- since all have questioned the efficacy of the drug laws.

It goes against the whole concept of the jury to purge it of those who are critical of the government and some of its laws. That\\\'s why juries were created in the first place -- to be a check on runaway government.

We hope Kriho\\\'s conviction is over-turned somewhere along the way, even if it has to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
###

Rocky Mountain News
400 W. Colfax
Denver, CO 80204
Phone: (303) 892-5000
Fax: (303) 892-5499
Email: letters@denver-rmn.com