KRIHO FOUND GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT

Update: February 10, 1997

Laura Kriho, former Gilpin County juror, was pronounced guilty of contempt of court on Monday. A date will be set soon for her sentencing.

The nine-page ruling was issued Monday afternoon by First Judicial District Chief Judge Henry Nieto who presided over Kriho\\\'s trial. The ruling states that Ms. Kriho \\\"deliberately and willfully withheld and concealed information which was relevant and important to selecting a fair and impartial jury, and that Ms. Kriho did so with the intent of serving on the jury for the purpose of obstructing justice\\\".

The timing of the ruling came as a surprise to Ms. Kriho and her attorney Paul Grant. They were informed of it by a local reporter who just happened to call Judge Nieto\\\'s office inquiring about a verdict. Grant and Kriho have yet to receive the verdict in the mail.

Judge Nieto took over 4 months to issue this written verdict. Paul Grant had six weeks to prepare her trial defense and only one week to research the applicable law for post-trial legal briefs requested by Judge Nieto.

Legal eagles wonder, \\\"If it took a judge 4 months and 9 single-spaced pages to detemine how Laura violated the law, how was Laura ever supposed to obey the law in the first place?\\\"

Kriho\\\'s prosecutor, Jim Stanley, tried to prove that Kriho should be convicted of contempt of court for three reasons:

1) Disobedience to an order of the court.
Judge Nieto ruled in favor of Kriho, stating the People never introduced the relevant transcripts into evidence at Kriho\\\'s trial.
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.
Reports from Kriho\\\'s trial indicated that this charge was the most ill-defined of the three. 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.

This nine-page ruling has made it a little clearer.

Judge Nieto ruled that Kriho, during jury selection, deliberately withheld her attitude 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. This Court finds this conduct constitutes obstruction of justice and this conduct was offensive to the authority and dignity of the trial court.\\\"


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 during voir dire. She was seated late in the process. Over 350 different [questions] had been asked of other jurors while she was in the audience. Kriho was asked 21 questions (12 by the judge, 6 by the prosecutor, and 3 by the defense attorney), one of which was \\\"You listened to all of our topics; would you have answered anything differently?\\\"

Like all the other jurors before her, Kriho replied no.

Laura\\\'s conviction sets a dangerous precendent in our system of justice. Much help will be needed in this case. Laura\\\'s sentencing date has not been set, but could come in the near future. She faces up to 6 months in jail and an unlimited fine. Updates will follow.