Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
03/09/2005 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB103 | |
| HB187 || HB188 | |
| HB149 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 188 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 149 | ||
HB 103 - CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE 1:16:00 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 103, "An Act requiring an actionable claim against the state to be tried without a jury." 1:16:22 PM HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Mike Kelly, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said on behalf of Representative Kelly that HB 103 provides for a simple change to the existing [law] that says claims against the state shall be tried by a jury; with the change proposed by HB 103, such claims shall be tried by a judge without a jury. He pointed out that the proposed change would return the state to the same procedure it had prior to 1975, when Senator John Butrovich introduced legislation providing for the current procedure. He also pointed out that in 1975, the state was a party in University of Alaska v. National Aircraft leasing, Ltd., 536 P.2d 121, 128-29 (Alaska 1975), and relayed that according to information he received from a member of the 1975 University of Alaska Board of Regents, Senator Butrovich introduced the aforementioned legislation in response to that case. Mr. Hilyard said that he and Representative Kelly have spoken to general counsel for the University of Alaska, who indicated that she has no problem with the proposed change. In addition, he relayed, he and the sponsor were told by the Alaska Academy of Trial Lawyers (AATL) that it remains neutral on the issue. CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 103. 1:18:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that he has a lot of concerns regarding HB 103 and would like to have more discussion on it with all committee members present. CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the members who were absent have requested that the bill be heard another time when they can attend. She suggested that today, members that are present can provide the sponsor's staff with a list of items they'd like more information on for the bill's next hearing. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that HB 103 was discussed in the House State Affairs Standing Committee; that he has concerns with the bill; and that when the bill was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee, he voted "do not pass." He said he would like to have testimony reopened [when the bill is heard next]. CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that she would do so. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that juries tend to favor defendants, and offered his understanding that in the aforementioned case, it was the University of Alaska that had asked for a trial by jury. [Chair McGuire turned the gavel to over to Representative Kott.] REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Representative Gara to explain his concerns. 1:22:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA Opined that there's more chance of a jury getting a case right than there is of a judge getting it right. He added: What happens in the dynamic of a jury trial is that certain people miss certain evidence, and they all get in the room and then one will say, "Do you remember this part," and then another will say, "Do you remember this part." And I think when you put 12 heads together - or 6 heads, I think, ... [in] a district court case - ... you have more of a chance of getting it exactly right than you do if you're one person. So I think jury trials are better than judge trials - that's my personal belief. I think the constitutional framework is that people get to be judged by their peers, and I think the value of the jury system is incredible, in my view. And so I don't like taking away the right of the community to come in and judge the conduct of the state, judge the conduct of the plaintiff. ... I would be more scared, as a litigant, of a decision by a judge than I would [be of] a decision by a jury. So I think the jury process is much stronger than letting just a judge decide a case. It's also faster. What happens is, judges, when they decide cases, like any sort of person who's overwhelmed with work, they'll sit on a case during the trial and they feel compelled to ... [provide] a written decision, and it can be six months or longer to get a decision out of a judge after the trial is over. [In comparison] a jury returns the verdict pretty quickly. ... REPRESENTATIVE GARA concluded by saying that he likes the jury system. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that with a jury verdict - unless there is something very unusual, or the evidence could not possibly support the factual decision of a jury, or the jury instructions are erroneous - it is very hard to overturn a judgment by jury. On the other hand, he remarked, judges enter factual findings and conclusions of law, "and deference is given to them," but a decision by a judge can be picked apart on appeal much more easily than can a jury's decision. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted that the committee would be holding the bill over. [Representative Kott returned the gavel to Chair McGuire.] REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he doesn't find it useful to hear only one side of a story and then make a decision based only on that one side. So although members' packets contain a detailing of four cases against the state, the information is from the state's perspective, and so he is disinclined to rely on that information without hearing the cases from the other side's perspective. He acknowledged, however, that although he would like to hear both sides of the story for each of the four cases used as examples, the committee, as a practical matter, cannot conduct "four trials on these cases"; instead, he is just pointing out that anecdotal information from one side in litigated cases is often not that useful. CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that members or other interested parties have a bit more time to present information from both sides of the aforementioned cases. She stated that HB 103 would be held over. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Hilyard how the bill relates to the [Alaska State] Constitution. MR. HILYARD relayed that Article I, Section 16, of the Alaska State Constitution says: Civil Suits; Trial by Jury. In civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred fifty dollars, the right of trial by a jury of twelve is preserved to the same extent as it existed at common law. The legislature may make provision for a verdict by not less than three-fourths of the jury and, in courts not of record, may provide for a jury of not less than six or more than twelve. MR. HILYARD also relayed that Article II, Section 21, of the Alaska State Constitution says: Suits Against the State. The legislature shall establish procedures for suits against the State. MR. HILYARD suggested that the language of Article II, Section 21, can be interpreted to mean that the legislature has the discretion to determine how claims against the state will be handled. [HB 103 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|