ULTIMATE IRONY: JUROR DENIED JURY TRIAL

February 13, 1997

Statement of Harvey Wysong, National Spokesman for the Fully Informed Jury Association.

====================================

The prosecution and conviction of Laura Kriho is an attempt to destroy the independence of the jury system in Colorado. It should not be allowed to stand.

Kriho served as a juror in the trial of a young woman in Gilpin County in May of 1996. The young woman was accused of violating Colorado\\\'s drug laws.

During jury deliberations, Kriho expressed skepticism about the State\\\'s evidence and expressed opposition to the drug laws. But instructing the other jurors about \\\"jury nullification\\\" is probably what enraged the presiding judge.

When informed of Kriho\\\'s remarks during jury deliberations, Judge Kenneth Barnhill immediately declared a mistrial. He later filed contempt of court charges against Kriho.

The Supreme Court has recognized that the purpose of the jury is \\\"to prevent oppression by the government\\\" (Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145) and \\\"to guard against the exercise of arbitrary powers\\\" (Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522).

Anything which prevents the jury from fulfilling its purpose is an obstruction of justice. Jurors should not vote to enforce bad laws. Juries exist to protect us against such laws.

\\\"Voir dire\\\" is the process in which jurors are questioned about their attitudes. It was designed to protect the defendant against prejudiced jurors. It is now a tool used by the Government to cleanse the jury of any jurors who may be inclined to think independently.

During voir dire, jurors are frequently asked if they object to the enforcement of certain laws. Jurors who object to bad laws or harsh punishment are excused from jury service. There is no Constitutional basis for such a dismissal.

The real criminal in the original trial was Judge Barnhill. Barnhill was guilty of jury tampering/obstruction of justice. He permitted improper questions regarding the jurors\\\' attitudes about the law. He forced the jurors to swear an unauthorized, unconstitutional oath. And he lied to the jury about their authority. In so doing, he denied the defendant due process of law.

Laura Kriho was accused by Judge Barnhill and tried by Judge Henry Nieto. She was not convicted of lying during voir dire. She was convicted of failing to volunteer information which the prosecution would like to have known, but didn\\\'t ask.

Kriho, through her attorney Paul Grant, demanded trial by jury. But Judge Nieto denied that demand.

Even though the plain language of the Federal and State constitutions guarantee a right to jury trial for all crimes, courts routinely violate those guarantees. The courts have recently \\\"discovered\\\" that the words \\\"all crimes\\\" mean \\\"some crimes.\\\"

In the case of Laura Kriho, the court decided that the possible punishment (18 months) was not sufficient to guarantee her a jury trial.

The trial and conviction of Laura Kriho was a thoroughly corrupt process. It is hard to believe that it will withstand the appeals process.