Jury Duty 08 January 2002

USP45 · January 4, 2002, 10:57 AM

So I have Jury Duty next Wednesday, 08 January 2002. And i've been wondering... how much trouble will i get into if i refused to find a defendant guilty of a criminal charge of possession of a firearm?

"If that holster don't fit, you must acquit!"

~USP

deanf · January 4, 2002, 11:06 AM

www.fija.org

Goet · January 4, 2002, 11:07 AM

Trouble?

None.

You just may have a few headaches convincing your fellow jurors. Hung jury would probably take more time.

HankB · January 4, 2002, 11:24 AM

deanf gave you a GREAT source.

IMHO if a law is unjust or unjustly applied (like the Zenger case of old, mentioned at the fija website) the juror has a DUTY to acquit.

IMHO most gun laws in Mass. would fall into this category.

Coronach · January 4, 2002, 11:31 AM

The only problem you will have is getting seated on a jury. Voire dire will likely reveal your obvious right-wing-gun-nut-militia-member status (

)to the prosecutor and he will use one of his challenges to avoid having you on the jury.

But you can't possibly be in any trouble for refusing to convict. I mean, hell, OJ Simpson is still walking free, right?

Mike

deanf · January 4, 2002, 11:44 AM

Ask Laura Kriho, who refused to convict on a charge of possession of marijuanna, and went to jail for it. The story is at the fija site.

Goet · January 4, 2002, 12:21 PM

That Kriho case gives me the shivers.

It really brings home a few points. How reliable of a system is it when a lawyer can pick and choose which jurors will decide a case? why not random selection with only reasonable excuses (invalid, mental problems, strapped for cash...)?

Jury selection just seems too partial to one side or the other.

Ed Brunner · January 4, 2002, 12:49 PM

I couldn't pull up that website, but she must have announced some strange or controversal reason for her disagreement. If she for example, only maintained that the evidence failed to convince her beyond a reasonable doubt, I doubt anyone could have a problem with it.
My wife was on a jury once and while she was convinced the man was guilty, the prosecution had failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. She convinced a few other jurors and the man walked. She said she took her oath seriously and the judges instructions were explicit about what to do. So i have to wonder what the facts were in the Kirho situation.

deanf · January 4, 2002, 02:48 PM

Here's a little bit about the Kriho case. Turns out it wasn't pot, but meth. Makes no difference. Keep in mind this is an editorial.

Quote:

Los Angeles Times
Tuesday, February 4, 1997

National Perspective / ETHICS

HOLDOUT JUROR ACCUSED OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

Colorado case highlights 'jury nullification' theme, as well as truthfulness during voir dire.

By BARRY SIEGEL, Times Staff Writer

It appeared to be just another felony drug possession trial in Gilpin County, Colorado. The voir dire questioning of prospective jurors began on May 13; by the next afternoon, the jury already had withdrawn to deliberate the fate of a 19-year-old woman possibly too fond of methamphetamine. Then came an inquiring note from the jury room: Can a juror be disqualified for looking up the sentence for drug possession on the Internet? Can a juror be disqualified for stating "the criminal court system is no place to decide drug charges"?

Judge Kenneth Barnhill blanched as he studied this query. "I am," he told the lawyers in his courtroom that afternoon, "just more than a little bit ticked."

No wonder. Someone with opinions had slipped onto his jury. Someone who did not feel obliged to follow the letter of the law, or the instructions of the judge. Someone, as it happened, with a bent for libertarian philosophy, the industrial hemp movement and certain "jury nullification" themes sounded by the Fully Informed Jury Association. Barnhill saw no course but to declare a mistrial. He didn't stop there, however. Two months later, he issued a highly unusual criminal contempt of court citation against the holdout juror, one Laura J. Kriho of Nederland, Colorado.

So began an intriguing bit of judicial theater. There Kriho sat at her Oct. 1 contempt hearing, Court TV cameras rolling, the small Gilpin County courtroom packed with her supporters, as seven fellow jurors revealed her comments during their private deliberations.

Kriho didn't deny the statements quoted in their testimony: "I can't send this girl to prison ... I'm against the drug laws and won't vote for guilt ... Drug cases should be handled by family and community ... Jurors can vote their conscience ... Jurors have the right to nullify laws they don't like." But she did disclaim an agenda, or an inability to sit as a fair and impartial juror.

It wasn't hard to see Kriho as being on trial for her thoughts and speech in a jury room. It also wasn't hard to hear that notion being raised regularly by Kriho's lawyer and supporters, who at the hearing were given to much eye-rolling behind the prosecutor's back. Frequent parallels were drawn to the jurors who acquitted John Peter Zenger in 1735 by ignoring the court's definition of seditious libel, to the jurors fined and imprisoned in 1670 for refusing to convict William Penn of unlawful preaching, and to the jurors who defied the Fugitive Slave Act by absolving those aiding runaway slaves in the 1850s.

"If Laura Kriho can be prosecuted for contempt," declared her attorney, Paul Grant, "no juror who thinks for himself can safely speak in the jury room. The court is trying to intimidate anybody with an independent mind. The government cannot tell its citizens not to think critically of the law or the government. The government cannot order a juror to violate her own conscience. And the court cannot banish all jurors who have consciences."

With wan determination, prosecutor Jim Stanley gamely tried to explain that Kriho wasn't on trial for her beliefs, but for her "disobedience" of a court order and her "widespread deception" during the voir dire questioning. Stanley had a point. Although she wasn't directly asked precise questions about herself, it's true that Kriho did fail to disclose her attitudes about drug laws and jury rights, as well as her own arrest 12 years ago at age 19 for possession of LSD. It's also true that she researched and discussed the sentence for drug possession,

Contrary to the judge's instructions. But when the prosecutor labeled this conduct an "obstruction of justice ... a threat to the foundation of the judicial system that cannot be tolerated," it was clear there were subtexts at play.

Kriho may not have been on trial for her beliefs. But if she'd revealed them she would never have gotten on a jury, and that is the crux of the matter. Lawyers and judges use voir dire to weed out not only biased jurors but also those distinctly rich with conviction, knowledge, education and will. For the most part, lawyers on both sides want malleable blank slates, not people who read newspapers and attend meetings and sign petitions. If juries represent the voice of the community, it's only a slice, carefully carved. Jury tampering, Kriho's accusers call her conduct; look who's talking, Kriho's camp responds.

There is in all this, of course, a good deal of inflated rhetoric from both sides: "Chaos and collapse" will follow if jurors can nullify laws; "oppression and tyranny" if they cannot. There is also ambiguity: Southern white "jury nullifiers" have acquitted more than a few racist killers over the years. But Kriho's testimony at her hearing rang true: Whatever her beliefs, she observed from the witness stand, "if I had voted guilty, I would not be sitting here now."

A simple case, the judge suggested back then; he'd rule shortly. That was four months ago. His decision is still pending.

SW9M · January 4, 2002, 05:35 PM

USP45

During Voire dire use your head. They can't try the case before seating a jury. Answer truthfully, but over answer. You will not know the full extent of the case until you hear the evidence. If you think he is not guilty before hearing any evidence then you don't need to be on the jury.

Iv'e had a lot of experience as a possible jurist with Voire dire. Just use your head. If you are picked, then listen to the evidence and compare it to the law and the constitution. If nessecary, during deliberations, send a note out to the judge requesting a copy of the constitution. The constitution should be referenced in all trials.

I bet a request to the judge for a copy of the constitution would blow some legal minds.

hammer4nc · January 4, 2002, 09:32 PM

usp:

When I served jury duty some time ago, was surprised how little time was allotted for jury selection (maybe budget constraints?).
They almost seated a juror from the pool who was deaf (or acting deaf), understand this was a small county court with no "special needs" facilities. When I recieved my postcard to serve, I tried to get excused, saying (truthfully) I had prior contact with the judge in a land dispute, and I thought he was corrupt...no dice. At the end of the jury pool questioning, they asked if anyone had any reason not to serve. I raised my hand and repeated my story, adding that I thought I'd have a hard time following the judges orders. The judge got real red, and I thought he was going to throw me in jail. Guess what, I still got picked, and ended up being the jury foreman!

The jury ended up deadlocked on the assault case we were trying (had nothing to do with me). The judge dragged it out, before declaring a mistrial, we spent the last half day staring at the jury room walls...everyone said everything they were going to say.

My understanding was that any conversations that took place in the jury room were strictly confidential. The kriho case seems like an abuse.

If you're truthful, you can't get in trouble. If you do get on a jury, your single vote trumps 11 others, and the judge (for a conviction), and thats exactly the way it was designed. Could be a good civics lesson. Good luck.

January 4, 2002, 10:57 AM	#1
USP45 Senior Member Join Date: March 22, 2000 Location: Peoples Commonwealth of Massachusetts Posts: 1,562	Jury Duty 08 January 2002 So I have Jury Duty next Wednesday, 08 January 2002. And i've been wondering... how much trouble will i get into if i refused to find a defendant guilty of a criminal charge of possession of a firearm? "If that holster don't fit, you must acquit!" ~USP

January 4, 2002, 11:06 AM	#2
deanf Senior Member Join Date: June 5, 1999 Location: N47º 12’ x W122º 10' Posts: 1,599	www.fija.org __________________ I'm a constitutional fetishist. Airplane Pictures

January 4, 2002, 11:07 AM	#3
Goet Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2000 Location: North Ogden, UT Posts: 953	Trouble? None. You just may have a few headaches convincing your fellow jurors. Hung jury would probably take more time. __________________ Bomb Canada!

January 4, 2002, 11:24 AM	#4
HankB Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2000 Location: Central Texas, outside of Austin Posts: 1,698	deanf gave you a GREAT source. IMHO if a law is unjust or unjustly applied (like the Zenger case of old, mentioned at the fija website) the juror has a DUTY to acquit. IMHO most gun laws in Mass. would fall into this category. __________________ To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself - Sun Tzu

January 4, 2002, 11:31 AM	#5
Coronach Senior Member Join Date: March 25, 1999 Posts: 3,147	The only problem you will have is getting seated on a jury. Voire dire will likely reveal your obvious right-wing-gun-nut-militia-member status ( )to the prosecutor and he will use one of his challenges to avoid having you on the jury. But you can't possibly be in any trouble for refusing to convict. I mean, hell, OJ Simpson is still walking free, right? Mike __________________ The axe bites into the door, ripping a hole in one panel. The maniac puts his face into the hole, cackling gleefully, "Here's Johnny...erk." "And here's Smith and Wesson," murmurs Coronach, Mozambiquing six rounds of .357 into the critter at a range of three feet. -Lawdog "True pacifism is the finest form of manliness. But if a man comes up to you and cuts your hand off, you don't just offer him the other one. Not if you want to go on playing the piano, you don't." -Sam Peckinpah "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein

January 4, 2002, 11:44 AM	#6
deanf Senior Member Join Date: June 5, 1999 Location: N47º 12’ x W122º 10' Posts: 1,599	Ask Laura Kriho, who refused to convict on a charge of possession of marijuanna, and went to jail for it. The story is at the fija site. __________________ I'm a constitutional fetishist. Airplane Pictures

January 4, 2002, 12:21 PM	#7
Goet Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2000 Location: North Ogden, UT Posts: 953	That Kriho case gives me the shivers. It really brings home a few points. How reliable of a system is it when a lawyer can pick and choose which jurors will decide a case? why not random selection with only reasonable excuses (invalid, mental problems, strapped for cash...)? Jury selection just seems too partial to one side or the other. __________________ Bomb Canada!

January 4, 2002, 12:49 PM	#8
Ed Brunner Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 1998 Location: Natchez, MS, USA Posts: 2,562	I couldn't pull up that website, but she must have announced some strange or controversal reason for her disagreement. If she for example, only maintained that the evidence failed to convince her beyond a reasonable doubt, I doubt anyone could have a problem with it. My wife was on a jury once and while she was convinced the man was guilty, the prosecution had failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. She convinced a few other jurors and the man walked. She said she took her oath seriously and the judges instructions were explicit about what to do. So i have to wonder what the facts were in the Kirho situation. __________________ MOLON LABE UNTIL IT'S OVER! Ed

January 4, 2002, 05:35 PM	#10
SW9M Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 2001 Location: Free Plains of Texas Posts: 446	USP45 During Voire dire use your head. They can't try the case before seating a jury. Answer truthfully, but over answer. You will not know the full extent of the case until you hear the evidence. If you think he is not guilty before hearing any evidence then you don't need to be on the jury. Iv'e had a lot of experience as a possible jurist with Voire dire. Just use your head. If you are picked, then listen to the evidence and compare it to the law and the constitution. If nessecary, during deliberations, send a note out to the judge requesting a copy of the constitution. The constitution should be referenced in all trials. I bet a request to the judge for a copy of the constitution would blow some legal minds. __________________ Tyrants prefer: an unarmed and gagged peasant. Malo mori quam foedari. Malon Labe.

January 4, 2002, 09:32 PM	#11
hammer4nc Junior member Join Date: December 3, 2000 Posts: 575	usp: When I served jury duty some time ago, was surprised how little time was allotted for jury selection (maybe budget constraints?). They almost seated a juror from the pool who was deaf (or acting deaf), understand this was a small county court with no "special needs" facilities. When I recieved my postcard to serve, I tried to get excused, saying (truthfully) I had prior contact with the judge in a land dispute, and I thought he was corrupt...no dice. At the end of the jury pool questioning, they asked if anyone had any reason not to serve. I raised my hand and repeated my story, adding that I thought I'd have a hard time following the judges orders. The judge got real red, and I thought he was going to throw me in jail. Guess what, I still got picked, and ended up being the jury foreman! The jury ended up deadlocked on the assault case we were trying (had nothing to do with me). The judge dragged it out, before declaring a mistrial, we spent the last half day staring at the jury room walls...everyone said everything they were going to say. My understanding was that any conversations that took place in the jury room were strictly confidential. The kriho case seems like an abuse. If you're truthful, you can't get in trouble. If you do get on a jury, your single vote trumps 11 others, and the judge (for a conviction), and thats exactly the way it was designed. Could be a good civics lesson. Good luck.