From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 07:34:51 +0800
To: gbroiles@netbox.com
Subject: Re: Jury Duty
Message-ID: <199812232303.AAA23676@replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Greg Broiles writes:

>If you really do want to avoid jury service, mentioning FIJA or jury
>nullification ought to do the trick - it may get every juror within
>earshot excused, too, depending on how paranoid the locals are. 
>
>But I think that's a horrible idea - jury participation is an opportunity
>to exercise much more influence than you wield if/when you vote in an
>election. All by yourself, voting your conscience as shaped by the
>evidence and the jury instructions, you can force a mistrial, which might
>or might not mean the end of the case. If your view of the evidence and
>your understanding of the law, as explained by the judge in the jury
>instructions, proves to be persuasive to your fellow jurors, you will
>collectively make the law as it applies to the parties in your trial. It's
>pretty difficult to overturn a jury verdict - not impossible, but it's
>harder than you might think from watching TV.

Be aware that concealing your opinions on this matter can get you into
hot water.  Juror Laura Kriho was convicted of obstruction of justice
for not revealing that she believed in jury nullification, during the
selection process.  Kriho has appealed.  More information is at
http://home.utah-inter.net/don-tiggre/jrp.krihotoc.htm.

The judge's ruling, at http://www.eagle-access.net/index3.html:

:} After reviewing all the evidence and the law, and applying the standard
:} of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court reaches the following
:} conclusions.  During the jury selection process Ms. Kriho was aware that
:} the trial court and the lawyers felt it was a juror's duty to follow the
:} law as given by the trial court, and they wanted to know if any juror
:} disagreed with this proposition. Ms. Kriho was also aware that the trial
:} court and the parties wanted to know if the jurors could follow the rule
:} that punishment was not to enter into their deliberations. Ms. Kriho
:} was also aware that the trial court and the parties wanted to know if
:} the jurors could follow the rule that punishment was not to enter into
:} their deliberations. Ms. Kriho was also aware that the trial court and
:} the parties wanted to know if any juror had strong feelings concerning
:} the enforcement of drug laws or any experience that would affect their
:} attitude about drug laws. While being aware of the importance of these
:} issues and having been given the opportunity to comment on these issues,
:} Ms. Kriho deliberately withheld her opinions on these topics from the
:} trial court and the parties during the jury selection process. Based on
:} all the evidence, this Court concludes that it was Ms. Kriho's intent to
:} withhold this information from the trial court and the parties so that
:} she could be selected to serve on the jury and obstruct the judicial
:} process. By deliberately withholding this information, she obstructed
:} the process of selecting a fair and impartial jury. 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.