Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
03/16/2005 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Department of Corrections - Containment Model | |
| HB103 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 188 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 103 - CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE 3:31:53 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 103, "An Act requiring an actionable claim against the state to be tried without a jury." CHAIR McGUIRE noted that HB 103 also has a House Finance Committee referral. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report HB 103 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected for the purpose of discussion. He asked Ms. Voigtlander, Department of Law, for a rough estimate, encompassing the last few of years, of the state's payments for the type of tort cases that are being addressed by HB 103. GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide Section Supervisor, Torts and Worker's Compensation Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), said she didn't have that such information available, but indicated that she would research what those amounts were for the last couple of years. She added, "This bill would also implicate some other types of cases, and so I will try to make a cut as to cases that fall within [AS] 09.50.250, what that universe is in terms of state payouts for the last two to three years." REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that the bill cuts both ways with regard to cases involving the state in that sometimes the state will do better in front of a jury and sometimes the state will do better in front of a judge. He asked Ms. Voigtlander whether she thinks that the state might actually do better in front of jury when the case involves a claim brought by a prisoner. MS. VOIGTLANDER said she is not comfortable venturing an opinion on that issue, though she is prepared to answer factual cases about the bill. 3:36:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that AS 09.50.250 generally pertains to "non-contractual claims." MS. VOIGTLANDER concurred with his understanding, but noted that some other types of cases would be affected by AS 09.50.250, such as certain employment actions filed against the state - like wrongful discharge actions - and some counterclaims pertaining to certain types of condemnation actions. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether, if the bill passes, one would be able to bring a contractual claim against the state and have it be heard by a jury, and whether such can be done now. MS. VOIGTLANDER, characterizing her area of practice as isolated, declined to venture a response. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Voigtlander to provide information regarding "who has requested jury trials - have they been the state or the other party." MS. VOIGTLANDER explained that such information would not be available short of pulling up everyone's case, file by file, because such information is not collected into a database. However, based on her experience, just in seeing the paperwork flow in, she said that it is the exception for a plaintiff to not ask for a jury. 3:39:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether there is any factual or statistical information which shows that a trial-by-jury decision is rendered faster than a decision made by a judge. MS. VOIGTLANDER relayed that she is struggling with an answer to that question because the work in her section almost exclusively involves jury trials, since plaintiffs generally ask for a jury trial, and therefore she doesn't have experience with court trials. CHAIR McGUIRE pointed out that the Alaska Court System's fiscal note indicates a potential savings to the state because of a reduction in yearly jury costs. 3:41:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered the following reasons that a trial by jury is better than a trial by a judge: having 12 - or, in some instances, 6 people - together is more likely to result in a just decision, since an individual judge is no better than individual jurors are at remembering facts; regardless of whether the case is against a private party or the state, "a victim" has the right to a trial by his/her peers; the right to a jury trial is an important right, one that is democratic, wise, and works better than having a decision rendered by one person. He added: It's six of one and a half dozen of the other when you talk about which one results in a bigger verdict, and I think there are some plaintiffs who'd rather have a trial in front of a judge. I think if you're a prisoner or somebody with a background that's not very sympathetic, you'd rather have a trial in front of judge, not a jury, and in those cases I think the state would request a jury trial, but ... won't be able to under this bill anymore. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that his experience has shown him that as a judge gets more and more cases, a judge's decision can be delayed for a long time - sometimes for months - whereas a jury must make a decision right at the end of trial, generally within one to three days. He again expressed a preference for the jury trial process. CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the procedure that HB 103 proposes to institute had been in place in Alaska prior to 1975, and offered her understanding that such a procedure has been characterized as more efficient. And although there are times when a jury trial is more appropriate, she remarked, it is also a more expensive procedure. She also offered her understanding that the procedure was changed for the benefit of the University of Alaska, which, in University of Alaska v. National Aircraft leasing, Ltd., 536 P.2d 121, 128-29 (Alaska 1975), had asked for a jury trial and been denied. She remarked that a lot of other states have a similar procedure in place, and suggested that Representative Gara's argument regarding "six of one half a dozen of another" actually speaks for the bill. In conclusion, she said she doesn't think that the rights of Alaskan's are going to impaired greatly by the passage of HB 103, and expressed confidence that Alaska's judges will make the right decisions [in cases against the state]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that when the Magna Charta was signed, one of the most important rights that was granted to the English people was the right of a jury trial. That is a fundamental right, he opined, and a fundamental tenet of "our" system of government. One of the only areas in which the right of a jury trial was denied, and which he characterized as a legal antiquity, was the right to sue "the Crown" because the king can do no wrong. But that's not the way it should be, he argued, because "the king" can obviously do wrong and is found to do wrong every time there's a judgment against the king - or the queen, or the state, or the country. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as prohibiting the U.S. Government from being sued without its consent, adding that Congress has largely granted that consent, and opined that this is why the Alaska State Constitution says that the state can be sued if the legislature consents, which it has done. He offered his belief that no one has sited any instance where the right of a jury trial has been granted by waiving sovereign immunity and then subsequently taken away from the people. "This is a very serious step; I am unaware of any circumstance, anywhere, where the right of a jury trial has been given and then subsequently denied, ... particularly here, without any showing at all that [the right] has been abused," he added. CHAIR McGUIRE said that Representative Gruenberg's points are well taken, but suggested that he is straying a bit beyond the topic of the bill and into the area of sovereign immunity. She pointed out that when the state is sued, it is the people themselves who are being sued. She opined that HB 103 does not restrict the right to sue the state, rather it merely proposes that when one does sue the state, the decision will be made by a judge, not a jury; the bill addresses the question of what is the more efficient method of exacting justice in a way that can be met by the state's resources. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief, however, that taking away the right to a jury trial does restrict one's right [to sue the state]. CHAIR McGUIRE countered, "It doesn't restrict your right to sue, and that's the area you were treading into in terms of suing 'the Crown.'" 3:49:26 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McGuire, Anderson, Kott, and Dahlstrom voted in favor of reporting HB 103 from committee. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara voted against it. Therefore, HB 103 was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2. CHAIR McGUIRE asked Ms. Voigtlander to forward to the entire committee any additional information she obtains regarding the issues discussed. [HB 103 was reported from committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|