Pubdate: 15-17 June 1999 Source: Colorado Daily Contact: http://www.codaily.com/ Author: T. Dave Gowan QUALITY JURORS EXCLUDED BY VOIR DIRE PROCESS I have been reading with interest the proceedings and rulings in Colorado in the case of former juror Laura Kriho. For 25 years I have been excluded from participation on juries by the voir dire process. I am a former police officer and state trooper; that excluded me several times. I am an experienced volunteer guardian ad litem and volunteer small claims mediator; those have also excluded me because of my familiarity with the courts. Heaven forbid we should allow any person with experience in the courts to become a juror? Am I a second-class citizen? Am I not a peer of other citizens? Don't I have a right or privilege to serve as a juror? I endured my last call to jury duty a month ago, and sat while my privacy was invaded by questions from both counsel, for information that is really irrelevant to whether I could be a good juror. I think I have some rights that are being violated. But we allow the courts to make their rules of procedure, and there is no other branch of government to review them. I think this entire process of voir dire, allowing attorneys to ask people intimate and exhaustive questions, and then attempt to stretch them to the entire mass of jurors with a single question, is only a way for attorneys, with the blessing of another attorney (the judge) to violate people's rights with the assistance of the court. Laura Kriho has the right to belong to, and be active in, a fringe group that advocates the change of existing laws (the hemp initiative). Such participation should not cause her to lose rights or become unqualified to serve in any role as a law-abiding citizen. I believe that allowing either counsel to exclude her from her service because of her legal participation in such a group discriminates against her constitutional rights of free speech and free religion. To do so proclaims that if she might be sympathetic to the defendant, or the plaintiff, she does not qualify to be a member of a jury of one's peers. The court compels her to come and serve, she becomes a temporary employee by payment by the court for her service, and then while serving, an officer of the court is allowed to discriminate against her because of her beliefs when holding those beliefs and having spoken out in favor of them is constitutionally protected. If Laura Kriho were employed in a clerical person in a corporation, and were rejected for service in an advisory policy-making committee on the grounds that someone among the corporation's officers found her legal and private beliefs objectionable, she could sue them successfully. Who regulates the courts and their rules? When can we restore the traditional role of citizens in juries? Under our democratic system the elected representatives are supposed to legitimize public opinion into law, the executive officers are supposed to enforce them, and juries of citizens are supposed to validate them. The courts are supposed to have a role in validation of laws, too. Nowadays the courts no longer serve their validation role, because it seems they have their own social agenda and job security to advance. T. Dave Gowan Crawfordville, Fla. Via Internet - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake