Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)

03/11/2019 01:30 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
            SB 15-GRAND JURY BY PETITION; DISCLOSURE                                                                        
1:31:18 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
SENATE BILL NO.  15, "An Act relating to a  petition to convene a                                                               
grand jury;  and repealing and  reenacting Rule  16(b)(3), Alaska                                                               
Rules of Criminal Procedure,  concerning a prosecuting attorney's                                                               
duty  to  disclose favorable  information  to  a defendant  in  a                                                               
criminal proceeding."                                                                                                           
1:32:15 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE testifying  as  sponsor,  paraphrased from  the                                                               
sponsor statement, which read as follows:                                                                                       
     During  this time  in Alaska's  history as  we work  to                                                                    
     revise statute to ensure the  public safety of Alaskans                                                                    
     by holding  criminals accountable, it may  seem like an                                                                    
     interesting effort to also  ensure justice and fairness                                                                    
     for  those that  may  have not  had  an adequate  legal                                                                    
     process to prove themselves innocent.                                                                                      
     Senate Bill  15 provides  two processes to  ensure that                                                                    
     justice is served.                                                                                                         
     Senate Bill 15  enacts a process by which  a grand jury                                                                    
     investigation  is activated  by  the  public through  a                                                                    
     well-defined  process.  Although Alaska's  Constitution                                                                    
     under Article 1,  Section 8 states "The  power of grand                                                                    
     juries   to   investigate  and   make   recommendations                                                                    
     concerning  public welfare  or  safety  shall never  be                                                                    
     suspended," a process does not  currently exist for the                                                                    
     public to initiate the process.                                                                                            
     Senate Bill 15 also  repeals and reenacts Rule 16(b)(3)                                                                    
     concerning  a prosecuting  attorney's duty  to disclose                                                                    
     favorable  information  (exculpatory   evidence)  to  a                                                                    
     defendant in  a criminal  proceeding. Perhaps  the most                                                                    
     famous case of the  withholding of exculpatory evidence                                                                    
     was during  the prosecution of Alaska's  US Senator Ted                                                                    
     Stevens,  where  the  Senator would  have  likely  been                                                                    
     found not guilty had the evidence been presented.                                                                          
     Senate Bill  15 will provide greater  protection to the                                                                    
     accused to  ensure that they  receive a fair  trial and                                                                    
     that  exculpatory  evidence   information  will  become                                                                    
     available  when  applicable  to   the  outcome  of  the                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  also remarked that  it is important  to confine                                                               
the  bill to  cases  in  the criminal  justice  system for  those                                                               
parties  that believe  they have  been  unfairly convicted.  This                                                               
bill does not embrace a  wide-open process, he said. Other states                                                               
that  have  a similar  process  include  Oklahoma, Nevada,  North                                                               
Dakota, Kansas and Nebraska.                                                                                                    
The  bill   would  bolster  and  strengthen   the  standards  for                                                               
disclosure of  exculpatory evidence  in Alaska. It  would provide                                                               
judges with  a broad  range of  remedies for  non-compliance. The                                                               
U.S.  Supreme   Court  in  Brady   v.  Maryland  held   that  the                                                               
prosecution has  a constitutional  obligation to disclose  to the                                                               
defense  any   and  all  exculpatory  evidence.   However,  Brady                                                               
violations,   as  they   are  known,   are  common   in  criminal                                                               
prosecutions. It  can lead  to reversal  of decisions,  but often                                                               
not until  the defendant has  suffered a  great deal of  harm. In                                                               
2008,  the  case  against  U.S.  Senator Ted  Stevens  led  to  a                                                               
conviction because evidence was withheld  [and the case was later                                                               
set aside  by a  federal judge].  It is  important for  people to                                                               
know wrongful convictions  can happen to anyone at  any level, he                                                               
said.  A  single  wrongful conviction  due  to  unclear  guidance                                                               
represents a miscarriage of justice  and is entirely preventable,                                                               
he concluded.                                                                                                                   
1:35:14 PM                                                                                                                    
EDRA  MORLEDGE,  Staff,  Senator  Peter  Micciche,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, Juneau, provided the sectional analysis for SB 15.                                                                 
1:35:32 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MORLEDGE read Section 1.                                                                                                    
     Section 1: Adds new section AS 12.40.120 Grand Jury                                                                        
     (a)  allowing an  individual to  petition to  convene a                                                                    
     grand jury  for the  purpose of investigating  a matter                                                                    
     that could result in an indictment (Page 1, lines 6-8)                                                                     
     (b) Establishes  the individual must file  the petition                                                                    
     in the  appropriate judicial  district. (Page  1, lines                                                                    
     (c)  Establishes that  within  4 days  the judge  shall                                                                    
     enter an order of  determination of whether the subject                                                                    
     of the petition can  be reasonably investigated and may                                                                    
     lead to information that would lead to an indictment                                                                       
     (Page 1, line 13  Page 2, line 3)                                                                                          
     (d)  Establishes that  the judge  must issue  a written                                                                    
     order  if   the  petition  is  deficient,   allows  the                                                                    
     petitioner to  file an amended petition  within 2 days,                                                                    
     and requires  the judge 2 additional  days to determine                                                                    
     if it meets the requirements (Page 2, lines 4-9)                                                                           
     (e)  States  the  petitioner   may  not  circulate  the                                                                    
     petition without a court order (Page 2, lines 10-11)                                                                       
     (f)  Establishes the  procedure for  the petitioner  to                                                                    
     collect the required signatures  and file the completed                                                                    
     petition  with  the  Division  of  Elections.  It  also                                                                    
     requires  the division  to certify  the signatures  and                                                                    
     submit the  petition to  the clerk  of court,  who must                                                                    
     then submit  it to  the presiding superior  court judge                                                                    
     (Page 2, lines 12-20)                                                                                                      
     (g)  Allows  an individual  who  signed  a petition  to                                                                    
     remove their  name any time  before it is  certified by                                                                    
     (Page 2, lines 21-24)                                                                                                      
     (h)  Requires the  presiding  superior  court judge  to                                                                    
     convene a grand jury within  30 calendar days after the                                                                    
     certification of the petition  is received by the clerk                                                                    
     of court (Page 2, lines 25-28)                                                                                             
     (i)  Provides for  penalties for  offering anything  of                                                                    
     value or  making false  [statements] to  signatories of                                                                    
     the petition (Page 2, lines 29  Page 3, line 4)                                                                            
     (j) Clarifies  the definition  of "knowingly"  (Page 3,                                                                    
     line 5)                                                                                                                    
1:37:57 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MORLEDGE read Section 2.                                                                                                    
     Section  2:   Amends  the  Alaska  Rules   of  Criminal                                                                    
     Repeals   and   reenacts  Rule   16(b)(3)   Prosecuting                                                                    
     Attorney's  Duty to  Disclose Favorable  Information to                                                                    
     Defense Counsel                                                                                                            
     (A)  (Beginning on  Page 3,  line 10,  through Page  4,                                                                    
     line 5)  Requires the prosecuting attorney  to disclose                                                                    
     to  the defense  counsel  any  material or  information                                                                    
     that tends to  negate the guilt of  the accused. Within                                                                    
     20 days  after the  written notice  of demand  from the                                                                    
     defense,  the prosecuting  attorney  must disclose  the                                                                    
     (i) all  information favorable to the  accused in their                                                                    
     possession, or  in the  possession of  a branch  of law                                                                    
     (ii) evidence  disproving the  identity of  the accused                                                                    
     as the perpetrator of an offense                                                                                           
     (iii)  evidence tending  to disprove  an element  of an                                                                    
     (iv) evidence of varying testimony of a witness                                                                            
     (v)  evidence  that  a witness  has  a  prior  criminal                                                                    
     (vi)   evidence  that   a  witness   has  issues   with                                                                    
     (vii)  evidence that  a witness  may  have an  ulterior                                                                    
     motive,  bias, compensation  or information  tending to                                                                    
     devalue their testimony                                                                                                    
     (B)   Addresses  materials   not  in   the  prosecuting                                                                    
     attorney's possession,  and requires  they make  a good                                                                    
     faith  effort   identify  the  material  and   make  it                                                                    
     available to the defense (Page 4, lines 6-11)                                                                              
     (C) Requires  the prosecuting  attorney to  continue to                                                                    
     disclose  materials to  the defense  before and  during                                                                    
     the trial (Page 4, lines 12-18)                                                                                            
     (D) Allows  the prosecuting attorney to  request an in-                                                                    
     camera review  of any evidence demanded  by the defense                                                                    
     counsel  and  requires the  court  to  issue a  written                                                                    
     order  granting   or  denying  the   defense  counsel's                                                                    
     request.   The  court   must   ascertain  whether   the                                                                    
     requested review  is expected to cause  substantial and                                                                    
     identifiable harm  to others  that outweighs  the right                                                                    
     of the accused to  access the materials, whether access                                                                    
     would have  a detrimental effect on  the proceeding, or                                                                    
     whether   the   materials   are  personal   notes   and                                                                    
     observations. (Page 4, lines 19  Page 5, line 2)                                                                           
     (E) Requires  the date of  disclosure of  materials may                                                                    
     not be less than 30 days  before a trial (Page 5, lines                                                                    
     (F-H)  Procedures  for  dealing with  noncompliance  of                                                                    
     this   rule   and   establishes   remedies,   including                                                                    
     sanctions (Page 5, line 9  Page 6, line 4)                                                                                 
1:40:40 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MORLEDGE read Section 3.                                                                                                    
     Section 3: Conditional Effect                                                                                              
     Section  2 of  this Act  takes  effect only  by a  two-                                                                    
     thirds vote of  each body of the  legislature. (Page 6,                                                                    
     lines 7-9)                                                                                                                 
     ? 15.  Rule-Making Power The  supreme court  shall make                                                                    
     and  promulgate rules  governing the  administration of                                                                    
     all  courts.   It  shall  make  and   promulgate  rules                                                                    
     governing practice and procedure  in civil and criminal                                                                    
     cases in all courts. These  rules may be changed by the                                                                    
     legislature by  two-thirds vote of the  members elected                                                                    
     to each house                                                                                                              
1:41:00 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES recalled  that the  sponsor  mentioned two  federal                                                               
cases:  the Brady  case and  the  late U.S.  Senator Ted  Stevens                                                               
case. She  noted that  both cases violated  the federal  rules of                                                               
discovery.  She asked  for further  clarification on  whether the                                                               
same problems exist in state law.                                                                                               
SENATOR MICCICHE responded that exculpatory evidence exclusions                                                                 
resulted in the prosecution and conviction of the late U.S.                                                                     
Senator Ted Stevens.  He highlighted that what  happened in those                                                               
cases is  the issue, not specifically  whether it was a  state or                                                               
federal matter. Adequate evidence  that likely would have cleared                                                               
Senator Stevens  was not allowed  or presented, which led  to his                                                               
wrongful conviction.  Other cases  exist where  adequate evidence                                                               
that might  clear the  defendant is often  not shared  during the                                                               
prosecution process, he said.                                                                                                   
CHAIR  HUGHES recalled  that six  states have  similar laws.  She                                                               
asked  whether any  evidence indicates  that the  empaneled grand                                                               
juries in  those states ever  righted a failure.  She highlighted                                                               
that she did not find any  recent cases in these states where the                                                               
normal grand jury process had failed.                                                                                           
MS.  MORLEDGE responded  that her  overview did  not go  into the                                                               
specifics, but she has reviewed several recent Kansas cases.                                                                    
1:44:13 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  asked whether  the  person  being indicted  would                                                               
receive a notice of the petition.                                                                                               
MS.   MORLEDGE   answered   that  the   [Alaska   Court   System]                                                               
notification process is  not set out in these  procedures nor was                                                               
she  familiar with  the court's  notification for  indictees. She                                                               
deferred to the Alaska Court System to respond.                                                                                 
1:45:00 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE explained the genesis of  SB 15. He said that it                                                               
stems  from a  certain unfair  conviction case  in his  district.                                                               
Although the [U.S.] Constitution  guarantees the public the right                                                               
to a grand jury investigation, it  may not provide the trigger or                                                               
mechanism for it.  Although he acknowledged that SB  15 might not                                                               
be the ideal  vehicle to address the problem,  he envisioned that                                                               
it  would  provide an  important  process,  one that  would  very                                                               
rarely be  used, if at all.  It would provide a  mechanism [for a                                                               
grand jury  to investigate] situations where  the defendants felt                                                               
the process led  to unfair convictions. Further,  it is important                                                               
to consider  whether [the statutes  are appropriate] and  if they                                                               
could be improved upon.                                                                                                         
1:46:46 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL said  he appreciates  the  sponsor's openness.  He                                                               
questioned  who  would  prosecute these  cases.  Presumably,  the                                                               
district attorney decided  not to bring an  indictment before the                                                               
grand jury,  he said.  Although he understands  that SB  15 would                                                               
provide  an  individual  the  right   to  trigger  a  grand  jury                                                               
investigation, he was  uncertain how that process  would work, he                                                               
SENATOR MICCICHE  responded that would  be a good question  if it                                                               
pertained   to  a   grand   jury   investigation  requesting   an                                                               
indictment.  However, in  this instance  the party  could request                                                               
additional  defense if  the  processes used  that  resulted in  a                                                               
conviction were inadequate to provide  defense for the defendant.                                                               
For  example,  Mr. David  Haeg,  who  would be  testifying  later                                                               
today,  should  have been  allowed  a  more open  evaluation  and                                                               
process in his case. He characterized the case as unique.                                                                       
1:48:45 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR SHOWER expressed  concern that SB 15 might  be too broad.                                                               
For example, it might allow  parties grounds or an opportunity to                                                               
petition to indict oil executives  on climate change. Although he                                                               
said his example  is facetious, it illustrates  the potential for                                                               
abuse. He  referred to Section 1  of SB 15. He  asked whether the                                                               
decision to reject  a petition is in the purview  of the court or                                                               
if  a  judge's   authority  would  be  limited   to  whether  the                                                               
requirements were met to convene a grand jury.                                                                                  
MS. MORLEDGE  related her understanding  that it would  be within                                                               
the judge's  purview to review  an application to ensure  that it                                                               
met  the  requirements, but  not  to  determine the  outcome.  In                                                               
further response to  Senator Shower, she affirmed  that the court                                                               
cannot  make a  final  determination but  could  only review  the                                                               
SENATOR MICCICHE offered  his belief that a judge  would have the                                                               
authority to determine  any deficiency in the approach  used in a                                                               
case. He referred to subsection (d).  He said that there are many                                                               
reasons an application could be found deficient or insufficient.                                                                
SENATOR SHOWER  asked whether the  grand jury would  move forward                                                               
with an investigation if the requirements were met.                                                                             
SENATOR MICCICHE  agreed that  this bill would  ask the  court to                                                               
reevaluate a  prior finding used  to convict someone  and provide                                                               
for a  reasonable petition  in instances in  which the  party has                                                               
exhausted other avenues to appeal a decision.                                                                                   
1:52:23 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES interpreted  this provision  to mean  that a  party                                                               
would have one  chance to submit an application. She  did not see                                                               
any language  in the bill that  would allow an applicant  to keep                                                               
petitioning to convene  a grand jury. Ultimately  this means that                                                               
the judge would have the  authority to deny a second application,                                                               
she said.                                                                                                                       
1:52:59 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  SHOWER turned  to page  4  to the  court rule  amendment                                                               
under Court  Rule 16(b)(3)(B),  which read  [original punctuation                                                               
     If  material   or  information  requested   by  defense                                                                    
     counsel is  not in the possession,  custody, or control                                                                    
     of the  prosecuting attorney, the  prosecuting attorney                                                                    
     shall make  a diligent, good faith  effort to ascertain                                                                    
     the existence of the  requested material or information                                                                    
     and  make the  material  or  information available  for                                                                    
     discovery where it exists.                                                                                                 
He asked  how a diligent, good  faith effort would be  defined or                                                               
how  to   ascertain  if  someone  had   resisted  [providing  the                                                               
requested material].                                                                                                            
SENATOR MICCICHE deferred to the  Department of Law to answer. He                                                               
surmised that "good faith effort"  seems to have been defined and                                                               
cases  have set  precedent, but  he was  unsure how  it would  be                                                               
1:54:14 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES related  her understanding  that  Criminal Rule  16                                                               
already  requires the  prosecution to  turn over  all exculpatory                                                               
evidence  to the  defense. She  asked  whether any  of the  items                                                               
listed in Section 2 are not already covered in the rule.                                                                        
1:54:59 PM                                                                                                                    
1:55:28 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.                                                                                            
1:55:55 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MORLEDGE  added that currently Court  Rule 16(b)(3)(B) reads,                                                               
"The prosecuting  attorney shall disclose to  defense counsel any                                                               
material  or   information  within  the   prosecuting  attorney's                                                               
possession  or control  that tends  to  negate the  guilt of  the                                                               
accused as to  the offense or would tend to  reduce the accused's                                                               
punishment therefor."                                                                                                           
MS. MORLEDGE  explained that SB  15 specifically added  the types                                                               
of information to bolster and  strengthen the existing rules. The                                                               
penalty for  nondisclosure or noncompliance are  sanctions listed                                                               
in  subparagraph  (D)   of  the  court  rule.   She  referred  to                                                               
[subparagraph  (G)]  to  a  list  of other  things  that  can  be                                                               
     (G) Remedies.  In addition  to sanctions  imposed under                                                                    
     (e) of this  rule, if the court  finds that prosecuting                                                                    
     attorney  has  failed  to   comply  with  (b)(3)(A)  or                                                                    
     (b)(3)(B) of this rule, the court may order                                                                                
               (i) postponement or adjournment of the                                                                           
               (ii) exclusion or limitation of testimony or                                                                     
               (iii) a new trial;                                                                                               
               (iv) dismissal with or without prejudice; or                                                                     
               (v) any other remedy determined appropriate                                                                      
               by the court.                                                                                                    
1:57:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL recalled  the sponsor  highlighted  using a  grand                                                               
jury to  clear a person's name,  but the bill only  listed things                                                               
that would  result in ah  indictment. He asked  for clarification                                                               
on whether  this bill would  "clear" a person's name  rather than                                                               
to bring the person up on charges.                                                                                              
SENATOR  MICCICHE said  he envisioned  an indictment  would bring                                                               
people together to clear a  person's name or reduce the findings.                                                               
He related  a scenario in  which someone was subject  to criminal                                                               
proceedings,   laced   with   technical  obstructions   for   the                                                               
individual. This  bill would allow  the person to prove  the case                                                               
in a  different way. In  this specific  case, he did  not believe                                                               
Mr. Haeg  was given an adequate  opportunity to lay out  his case                                                               
in the manner that best reflected it.                                                                                           
SENATOR MICCICHE said the aforementioned  case is the only one he                                                               
is aware  of. After reviewing all  the documents in the  case, he                                                               
concluded that  something is amiss.  He highlighted that  this is                                                               
the type of case that would  warrant an application to initiate a                                                               
grand  jury  investigation. He  envisioned  that  the grand  jury                                                               
investigation  process   would  allow  {Mr.  Haeg]   to  have  an                                                               
unobstructed "day  in court."  He surmised  that [the  grand jury                                                               
could identify]  any irregularities that may  have been difficult                                                               
to bring out in a court.  The process often is controlled by what                                                               
and when evidence and materials can be presented, he said.                                                                      
SENATOR  MICCICHE maintained  his belief  that this  avenue would                                                               
rarely  be  used.  In  fact,  after  visiting  some  correctional                                                               
facilities,  he found  inmates would  rarely [admit]  their guilt                                                               
and often  professed their innocence. However,  he still believes                                                               
that  in some  cases  things  do not  go  right,  he said.  Those                                                               
parties  should have  an avenue  to request  an investigation,  a                                                               
careful   review   of   the    proceedings,   to   identify   any                                                               
irregularities  that  should  have  been  considered  during  the                                                               
prosecution that would result in the cases being reversed.                                                                      
2:00:42 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL   said  the   sponsor's  explanation   helped  him                                                               
understand  the rationale  for  the bill  although  he still  has                                                               
questions on an indictment after a court process.                                                                               
SENATOR  MICCICHE highlighted  that  these  issues are  important                                                               
ones in the criminal justice  system. He welcomed a team approach                                                               
to hone  the bill to  provide an  extremely narrow scope.  He was                                                               
unsure  of  how often  this  process  would  be used,  but  those                                                               
individuals  should have  justice  served.  He characterized  the                                                               
bill as  an unusual one  that uses  an unusual approach  to solve                                                               
the issue.                                                                                                                      
2:02:27 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  remarked that this would  likely open up "a  can of                                                               
worms."  She expressed  concern  of  how it  might  be used.  She                                                               
recalled the Kobach case in  Kansas [related to voter fraud] that                                                               
did not result in an indictment.                                                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE argued  that  he did  not  see the  correlation                                                               
between the  bill and  cases of  the type  mentioned. He  said he                                                               
sees it  quite differently.  He reiterated  his desire  to ensure                                                               
that the bill is very narrow  in scope to only pinpoint and apply                                                               
to  very  specific  cases.  He  recognized  that  it  presents  a                                                               
challenge to  ensure that justice occurs  while still maintaining                                                               
a process to address cases with irregularities.                                                                                 
2:04:21 PM                                                                                                                    
DAVID  HAEG,  representing  himself,   Soldotna,  said  that  the                                                               
legislature does not have the  authority to consider the validity                                                               
of  convictions,  which is  under  the  purview of  the  judicial                                                               
system. However, he  offered his belief that  the legislature and                                                               
grand juries  could investigate what  happened in cases  like his                                                               
to ensure that these [unfair  convictions] never happen again. He                                                               
asked members to  read, "The Investigative Grand  Jury in Alaska"                                                               
[February   1987  by   the  Alaska   Judicial  Council,   Jay  A.                                                               
Rabinowitz, Chairman].  He said the  report is a  thorough report                                                               
requested by  the Alaska  State Senate that  laid out  the duties                                                               
and obligations of  the grand jury in Alaska.  He interpreted the                                                               
findings  in  the  report as  repeatedly  indicating  that  grand                                                               
juries  are not  necessary in  order  to hear  from the  district                                                               
attorneys, the  prosecutors, or  to indict  individuals. Instead,                                                               
the drafters  of the Constitution of  the State of Alaska  at the                                                               
Alaska Constitutional  Convention, "over and over  again said 'we                                                               
have to have  a grand jury, sitting there empaneled'  in the rare                                                               
occasion  it   needs  to  investigate  government   officials  of                                                               
2:07:24 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HAEG characterized the wrongdoing  by government officials in                                                               
his case  as phenomenal. On  January 28-29, 2019,  an evidentiary                                                               
hearing  was held,  and  it  was shown  that  evidence and  sworn                                                               
testimony was never refuted by  the State of Alaska. He contended                                                               
that evidence presented  showed that the prosecutor  in his case,                                                               
District Attorney Scott Leaders, falsified  a map to convict him.                                                               
However, he never  provided that map prior to  trial as required.                                                               
Worse yet,  in a recording,  Scott Leaders, [a Fish  and Wildlife                                                               
Trooper, Brett Gibbens]  a state witness, discussed  that the map                                                               
used to  convict him was  falsified. Although this  recording was                                                               
requested before the  trial, it was never provided to  him or his                                                               
attorney.  He  attested  that  this   means  his  conviction  was                                                               
invalid.  For fifteen  years,  he and  his  family have  suffered                                                               
agony [due  to the  2004 case].  He offered  his belief  that his                                                               
case was manufactured by state officials, he said.                                                                              
He  further contended  that the  sole  investigator for  judicial                                                               
misconduct,   Marla   Greenstein  [Executive   Director,   Alaska                                                               
Commission   on   Judicial   Conduct],  falsified   an   official                                                               
investigation in order to clear  the judge in his trial [District                                                               
Court Judge Margaret Murphy] of  alleged misconduct. He contended                                                               
that the  complaint indicated that  the judge was  chauffeured by                                                               
the  main  witness against  him  [Alaska  Wildlife Trooper  Brett                                                               
Gibbens]. Secondly, the complaint  alleged that the judge removed                                                               
evidence from  the court record  prior to the  jury deliberations                                                               
that would have cleared him, he said.                                                                                           
MR.  HAEG expressed  concern that  all complaints  against judges                                                               
are  handled  by Marla  Greenstein,  who  may be  falsifying  the                                                               
information to  protect the judges.  He calculated  the potential                                                               
number  of  cases she  has  handled  in  the  last 30  years  and                                                               
concluded that  the potential exists  that a number of  judges in                                                               
Alaska are  corrupt. He expressed  gratitude to  Senator Micciche                                                               
for wanting to  illuminate his case. The  most important function                                                               
of a grand jury is to investigate  and issue a report to keep the                                                               
public informed. He offered his  belief that Ms. Greenstein needs                                                               
to be fired and "run out of the state on a pole."                                                                               
CHAIR HUGHES  interrupted and asked  him to direct  his attention                                                               
on the bill.                                                                                                                    
2:11:07 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HAEG  said it  is important  to have  a trigger  mechanism to                                                               
initiate   a  grand   jury  investigation.   He  said   that  the                                                               
Constitution  of the  State of  Alaska provides  that individuals                                                               
can petition for  one. However, when he wanted a  grand jury, the                                                               
petition was not allowed. He  acknowledged that there was a prior                                                               
grand  jury  investigation  in his  [initial]  case.  During  the                                                               
proceeding,  one of  the jurors  started  presenting evidence  to                                                               
other  grand  jurors,  but  Scott Leaders  "shut  him  down."  He                                                               
paraphrased the current  statute indicates that if  a grand juror                                                               
knows or  has reason to  believe a  crime has been  committed, he                                                               
shall  inform the  other grand  jurors  of his  belief and  those                                                               
grand jurors shall investigate. He  said this statute is in place                                                               
to allow  the public to examine  a case and not  have information                                                               
2:13:53 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES   asked  Mr.  Henderson,  Department   of  Law,  to                                                               
interpret   whether  the   grand   jury   adequately  meets   the                                                               
requirements in the Constitution of the State of Alaska.                                                                        
ROBERT HENDERSON, Assistant  Attorney General, Criminal Division,                                                               
Central Office,  Department of Law,  Anchorage, answered  yes. He                                                               
explained  that   the  Constitution   of  the  State   of  Alaska                                                               
contemplates  the  grand  jury serving  two  separate  functions.                                                               
First,  the grand  jury operates  as  the charging  body for  all                                                               
criminal felonious  acts. He  said that no  felony case  can move                                                               
forward  absent  an  indictment.  Second,  the  grand  jury  also                                                               
functions as an investigative grand  jury, which is a very rarely                                                               
used mechanism.  In fact, it is  used less and less  as time goes                                                               
on  because  it uses  a  very  procedurally complex  and  archaic                                                               
system. He recalled two big  investigative grand juries that have                                                               
been  convened  in  Alaska.  In  1985,  a  Fairbanks  grand  jury                                                               
recommended   that  the   Alaska   Senate   return  articles   of                                                               
impeachment against sitting Governor  Bill Sheffield. In 1989, an                                                               
Anchorage grand  jury recommended changes to  certain sex offense                                                               
statutes following an allegation that  a teacher in Anchorage was                                                               
having sexual  relations with a  student. That case  was commonly                                                               
known as  the "Satch" Carlson  case. He  said it is  important to                                                               
keep  those cases  in mind  because an  investigative grand  jury                                                               
returns  a report  that makes  recommendations, but  it is  not a                                                               
charging   document   or   indictment.   An   indictment   allows                                                               
prosecutors  to  move  forward   with  felony  criminal  charges.                                                               
However,  a  grand  jury  report  would  only  recommend  certain                                                               
changes. These reports remain confidential  by law under Criminal                                                               
Rule  6.1 to  avoid the  issue  of people  being defamed  without                                                               
adequate notice or  an ability to rebut.  The report subsequently                                                               
goes  before a  judge  and the  grand jury  is  represented by  a                                                               
prosecutor. In  fact, a  grand jury  cannot function  without one                                                               
being  present.  The judge  then  determines  whether the  report                                                               
should become  public. He emphasized  the fact that a  grand jury                                                               
can  only   function  through  a   prosecutor  is   important  to                                                               
2:18:02 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HENDERSON clarified  that  the grand  jury  is the  charging                                                               
authority for felony  conduct, not the prosecutors,  who serve as                                                               
legal advisors  to the grand  jury. The prosecutors  describe the                                                               
law and what  evidence the grand jury can  consider. He explained                                                               
that evidence must be admissible unless an exception applies.                                                                   
MR. HENDERSON highlighted  one concern the Department  of Law has                                                               
with SB 15 is  that it would create a new  mechanism to convene a                                                               
grand  jury.   That  mechanism  may  actually   conflict  with  a                                                               
prosecutor's ethical responsibilities, he  said. It may interfere                                                               
with effective  law enforcement because  as the bill  is written,                                                               
it  says that  the  grand jury  should be  convened  if it  would                                                               
warrant a  true bill of  indictment. He interpreted that  to mean                                                               
an allegation of  felony conduct. He cautioned that  if a private                                                               
citizen can  file a petition  to convene  a grand jury,  it could                                                               
have  the potential  to interfere  with ongoing  pending criminal                                                               
investigations.   Unfortunately,  criminal   investigations  take                                                               
time, he  said. However,  convening a  grand jury  to investigate                                                               
the  same thing  that  law enforcement  is already  investigating                                                               
could impede an ongoing criminal investigation.                                                                                 
2:19:52 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON said  prosecutors screen cases to  ensure the cases                                                               
are  based  on  admissible  evidence,  have  sufficient  probable                                                               
cause,  and to  ensure  the  case will  not  conflict with  other                                                               
pending legislation.  He elaborated.  As previously  mentioned, a                                                               
grand jury can only return a  true bill if admissible evidence is                                                               
presented  that   would  warrant  an  indictment.   In  terms  of                                                               
sufficiency  of  evidence,  a  prosecutor  is  under  an  ethical                                                               
responsibility to  only proceed  with cases that  he/she believes                                                               
are cases  in which  probable cause  exists. If  not, prosecutors                                                               
cannot ethically move forward on the  cases, he said. In terms of                                                               
conflict with  other pending litigation, he  described a scenario                                                               
in  which  a pending  criminal  case,  a  pending appeal  to  the                                                               
appellate courts,  or a  pending post-conviction  release alleges                                                               
that an  individual's conviction  was unjustly obtained.  He said                                                               
if  one of  those  processes was  occurring,  the prosecutor  may                                                               
determine the forum in pending cases                                                                                            
CHAIR HUGHES interrupted.                                                                                                       
2:21:44 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR SHOWER recalled  the bill sponsor considered SB  15 "as a                                                               
recourse" in  case an  issue or  a disagreement  arose as  to the                                                               
reason that  a grand jury  was not being convened.  He understood                                                               
that part  of the answer  is that the screening  process includes                                                               
parallel  efforts. He  asked what  recourse  an individual  would                                                               
have if a  decision was made that not enough  evidence existed to                                                               
move forward. He  pointed out that the Constitution  of the State                                                               
of Alaska provides that individuals can request a grand jury.                                                                   
MR.  HENDERSON explained  the reason  is because  other processes                                                               
are in place to address the concern  and the grand jury acts as a                                                               
body,  not individually.  The grand  jury must  have a  quorum to                                                               
meet and  a majority of  the grand jury  must be present  to move                                                               
forward. No single individual can  impose his/her judgment on the                                                               
will of the entire grand jury.                                                                                                  
2:24:22 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR SHOWER deferred to the sponsor.                                                                                         
2:24:33 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE said  that  sometimes items  are  used to  help                                                               
convict  an individual,  but the  [defendant] does  not have  any                                                               
avenue  to  challenge  those  issues.   The  prosecutor  acts  on                                                               
evidence presented  by individuals  who are  sometimes imperfect,                                                               
using information that  can technically or in  [Mr. Haeg's] case,                                                               
be  geographically imperfect,  but  currently [that  information]                                                               
cannot be  used to  challenge the case  afterwards. It  seemed to                                                               
him that people  should have the right to a  check and balance in                                                               
the system,  via the  grand jury, to  evaluate the  evidence. The                                                               
Constitution of the  State of Alaska seems to support  it, but it                                                               
lacks the  trigger to initiate  the grand jury  investigation, he                                                               
said. He  acknowledged that Mr. Henderson's  explanation would be                                                               
true in most cases.                                                                                                             
2:26:52 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HENDERSON  said  he  would  direct  the  person  [who  feels                                                               
unjustly  convicted]  to  apply for  post-conviction  relief.  He                                                               
explained that  mechanism provides  the most appropriate forum to                                                               
handle attacks  on someone's  underlying conviction.  He referred                                                               
to  Criminal Rule  35.1. Specifically,  Criminal Rule  35.1(a)(1)                                                               
relates  to  an  underlying  conviction   that  was  obtained  in                                                               
violation of  the U.S.  Constitution or  the Constitution  of the                                                               
State of  Alaska. It goes  through several other grounds  to seek                                                               
post-conviction relief.  He said  that if  a party  believes that                                                               
he/she  was  unfairly  convicted  and has  been  unsuccessful  on                                                               
appeal,  the  true  remedy  would be  an  application  for  post-                                                               
conviction relief.                                                                                                              
CHAIR HUGHES  referred to  Section 8 of  the Constitution  of the                                                               
State of Alaska. She read the  last sentence, "The power of grand                                                               
juries  to investigate  and make  recommendations concerning  the                                                               
public  welfare   or  safety  shall  never   be  suspended."  She                                                               
interpreted the  language to mean  that a person  cannot directly                                                               
initiate a grand jury investigation.  She asked who had initiated                                                               
the  grand  jury  investigation  for  the  two  cases  previously                                                               
mentioned.  She  related  her  understanding  that  the  attorney                                                               
general's office had initiated the investigations.                                                                              
MR. HENDERSON answered that is correct.                                                                                         
CHAIR HUGHES  said the public  elects the governor,  who appoints                                                               
the attorney general,  who is then confirmed  by the legislature.                                                               
She surmised  this would provide  an indirect way to  involve the                                                               
public in  bringing forth any  investigations. She  asked whether                                                               
it would  be possible for someone  like Mr. Haeg, who  feels that                                                               
justice has not been served,  to approach the next administration                                                               
and ask for a review.                                                                                                           
MR. HENDERSON agreed a subsequent  prosecutor or attorney general                                                               
could review Mr.  Haeg's case and make  a different determination                                                               
on the case.                                                                                                                    
2:30:02 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD  asked  for further  clarification  on  ethical                                                               
standards  or conduct  review  if a  prosecutor  were to  falsify                                                               
MR. HENDERSON said all prosecutors  have an ethical obligation to                                                               
provide the  defense with exculpatory  evidence or  evidence that                                                               
would tend  to negate  the guilt  of the  accused or  reduce that                                                               
SENATOR  REINBOLD  said  that  Mr.   Haeg  alleged  that  someone                                                               
falsified  data, so  it  seems  like a  new  prosecutor could  be                                                               
MR.  HENDERSON  said it  would  be  unethical for  any  attorney,                                                               
including  a  prosecutor,  to  suborn  perjury  by  intentionally                                                               
soliciting false information.                                                                                                   
2:32:07 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  turned to  Section 2  of SB  15. She  asked whether                                                               
Alaska has  rules to  protect Alaskans from  abuses such  as ones                                                               
that occurred with the late U.S. Senator Ted Stevens.                                                                           
MR. HENDERSON  answered that the  rules of discovery  are defined                                                               
by Criminal Rule 16. However,  the federal rules of procedure and                                                               
the  state rules  are very  different. Still,  the constitutional                                                               
obligations of  all prosecutors to disclose  exculpatory evidence                                                               
are the  same. They must  disclose any exculpatory  evidence that                                                               
is material  to the defendant  and his/her defense.  He explained                                                               
that exculpatory  evidence is hyper-technical, but  a substantial                                                               
amount of case law defines it.                                                                                                  
2:33:30 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  turned to  the list of  evidence Ms.  Morledge read                                                               
earlier.  She   asked  whether  prosecutors  currently   are  not                                                               
disclosing any of these items.                                                                                                  
MR. HENDERSON  prefaced his answer by  describing the information                                                               
on information the state already  provides. Under the state rules                                                               
of discovery, in  all cases, whether requested  by the defendant,                                                               
the state  must provide  the names and  addresses of  persons who                                                               
have relevant information, any written  or recorded statements of                                                               
any witness, and  the summary of any  statements collected during                                                               
the  course of  the  investigation. They  must  also provide  all                                                               
statements  of  the  accused,   including  written,  summary,  or                                                               
recorded, all statements of a co-defendant.                                                                                     
He said that all evidence that  used at trial must be provided or                                                               
allowed to  be inspected by  the defense,  including photographs.                                                               
The   prosecution   must   provide  all   records   of   criminal                                                               
convictions, all  expert reports, and all  information related to                                                               
any electronic  surveillance, including search warrants  and wire                                                               
taps, regardless of whether they  are requested. He characterized                                                               
it as  "automatic discovery". In  addition, the  prosecution must                                                               
provide anything the  defense thinks would be helpful  or if they                                                               
know it exists.  The defense can request the  court issue certain                                                               
processes of subpoena for them to collect.                                                                                      
MR.  HENDERSON clarified  that when  speaking  about ethical  and                                                               
constitutional  obligations  of  a   prosecutor  to  provide  any                                                               
exculpatory  evidence,  he wanted  to  point  out that  the  U.S.                                                               
Supreme Court  has been clear  to highlight it  means exculpatory                                                               
evidence that  is material to the  accused or to the  case. After                                                               
reviewing the items  listed in Section 2 of the  bill, he offered                                                               
his belief that materiality is what might be missing.                                                                           
He referred to page 3, line  23, and said that [Rule 16(b)(3)(A)]                                                               
(ii) and  (iii) are  clearly exculpatory  evidence that  would be                                                               
      (ii) evidence disproving the identity of the accused                                                                      
     as the perpetrator of an offense at issue;                                                                                 
      (iii) evidence tending to disprove an element of an                                                                       
     offense at issue;                                                                                                          
MR. HENDERSON  said other  information may be  provided if  it is                                                               
material to  the accused or the  defense. He referred to  page 3,                                                               
line 30, to sub-subparagraph (v),  which read, "(v) evidence that                                                               
a witness has  a prior criminal history;". He  said that although                                                               
criminal history could be favorable  and material to a defendant,                                                               
it may  not always be material.  For example, an eyewitness  to a                                                               
vehicle theft  who had previously been  investigated for domestic                                                               
violence  but was  not convicted  might not  be favorable  to the                                                               
accused.  However,  if the  [eyewitness]  had  been convicted  of                                                               
domestic violence,  that conviction  would be provided  under the                                                               
existing rule, he said.                                                                                                         
2:38:02 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES directed attention to page  3, line 17 of SB 15 that                                                               
requires prosecutors  to provide the information  within 20 days.                                                               
She  further asked  whether  the 30-day  rule  would cause  trial                                                               
MR.  HENDERSON answered  that  both timeframes  listed  in SB  15                                                               
would  be  difficult  to  meet  given  the  department's  current                                                               
staffing levels, although providing  information 30 days prior to                                                               
trial would  be easier.  Currently, the  department makes  a good                                                               
faith effort to  provide discovery in cases as  soon as possible.                                                               
The first court  status, or pretrial hearing falls  about 30 days                                                               
after arraignment, which  is typically when the  parties meet and                                                               
discuss discovery, he said.                                                                                                     
2:39:50 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  SHOWER  requested  answers to  three  questions:  first,                                                               
clarification on  the immunity of  prosecutors given  the alleged                                                               
misconduct  by  prosecutors; second,  who  can  bring charges  of                                                               
alleged  wrongdoing in  cases; and  third, who  would investigate                                                               
any allegations of these wrongdoings.                                                                                           
CHAIR HUGHES  asked that questions  be provided to  the committee                                                               
in written form [and responses be submitted to the committee].                                                                  
2:40:40 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE said  that he brought this  bill forward because                                                               
he does not believe checks  and balances exist for some extremely                                                               
rare  criminal cases,  although SB  15  was not  confined to  one                                                               
case. He  characterized the  court system  process as  a circular                                                               
one  that currently  lacks a  process to  provide an  independent                                                               
review of [wrongful conviction] cases.                                                                                          
2:42:13 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 15.                                                                                  
2:42:31 PM                                                                                                                    
JAMES PRICE,  representing himself,  Nikiski, stated  his support                                                               
for SB  15. It is  important to  respect the Constitution  of the                                                               
State of Alaska. Article I,  Section 8 clearly gives grand juries                                                               
the  power to  investigate  and make  recommendations related  to                                                               
public welfare or  safety of its citizens.  However, these powers                                                               
have been  suspended on  the Kenai  Peninsula, he  said. Although                                                               
the grand  jury should  be independent,  it is  not, he  said. He                                                               
expressed  concern   that  since   1989  the  process   has  been                                                               
suppressed which denies  people their rights. He said  that SB 15                                                               
will help them to regain their rights.                                                                                          
2:45:00 PM                                                                                                                    
SCOTT  EGGER,   representing  himself,  Ninilchik,  said   he  is                                                               
basically  in support  Senator Micciche's  efforts in  SB 15.  He                                                               
asked  members to  study  AS 12.40.030  and  AS 12.40.040.  After                                                               
studying Mr. Haeg's  case, he felt that other  cases would likely                                                               
benefit  from the  bill. He  suggested members  study Mr.  Haeg's                                                               
case to understand the problems that  exist in the Kenai area. He                                                               
alleged  that  multiple  judges and  prosecutors  have  committed                                                               
felonies by charging  some people with crimes.  He emphasized the                                                               
need  for an  independent  review of  this  outside the  judicial                                                               
system is  warranted. He offered  his belief that the  grand jury                                                               
should  be able  to  bring this  case  forward for  investigation                                                               
based on AS 12.40.                                                                                                              
2:47:51 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY  MEADE,  General  Counsel, Administrative  Offices,  Alaska                                                               
Court  System,  Anchorage,  expressed  concern with  SB  15.  She                                                               
agreed with Mr.  Henderson that other avenues  were available for                                                               
parties who  believe they were wrongfully  convicted, that errors                                                               
were made,  or even worse,  in the prosecution of  their criminal                                                               
She said  some, if not  all of them,  were taken advantage  of in                                                               
[Mr.  Haeg's] case.  For example,  a person  could ask  the trial                                                               
judge  for  reconsideration  by indicating  what  the  individual                                                               
thinks  is wrong,  she said.  Second, a  person could  request an                                                               
appeal to  the Alaska  Court of Appeals,  which occurred  in this                                                               
case,  she  said.  Third,  a person  could  petition  the  Alaska                                                               
Supreme Court  for consideration,  which she thought  occurred in                                                               
Mr.  Haeg's  case  although  she  was  unsure.  Finally,  as  Mr.                                                               
Henderson  mentioned,  an  individual  who  still  believed  that                                                               
problems existed could file for  post-conviction relief under the                                                               
criminal  rules and  request to  file another  case in  the trial                                                               
court. People have several opportunities for remedies, she said.                                                                
MS MEADE explained  that in situations in  which allegations were                                                               
very severe and  deep, that there would be other  ways to address                                                               
the concerns  short of  the grand jury  procedure proposed  in SB
15. For  example, if  someone thought  that state  officials were                                                               
corrupt,  that individual  could  seek assistance  from the  U.S.                                                               
Department of  Justice, the FBI,  or the Ombudsman by  asking for                                                               
an investigation.                                                                                                               
MS.  MEADE  expressed her  primary  concern  with Section  1,  AS                                                               
12.40.120(c)-(d), which  involves the judge helping  a petitioner                                                               
draft  a   charge  because  it   is  a   prosecutorial  function.                                                               
Presumably, a prosecutor has already  denied someone's request to                                                               
investigate or  bring charges to  the grand jury.  The petitioner                                                               
would  ask  the judge  to  change  the outcome  and  subsequently                                                               
decide  whether the  matter should  go before  a grand  jury. She                                                               
found  it troubling  that  a judge  would need  to  set out  each                                                               
deficiency  in   a  written  order.   She  characterized   it  as                                                               
requesting a  judge to give  legal advice or write  something for                                                               
parties that would suffice.                                                                                                     
She  directed attention  to  subsection (c).  She  said the  only                                                               
thing required  to be in a  petition was to state  something that                                                               
on  its face  identifies an  area to  be investigated  and allege                                                               
things, that if  true, would warrant felony  charge. While people                                                               
believe  many things  are true,  little  evidence supports  these                                                               
beliefs. She  said she  fears, as  some senators  have expressed,                                                               
that the  process in SB  15 would become  a "Pandora's box,  or a                                                               
can  of worms"  and be  way  overused. She  recalled the  sponsor                                                               
expressed his interest  in keeping it narrow. She  doubted that a                                                               
grand jury, even with its  investigative powers, could overturn a                                                               
conviction or  clear someone's name.  Further, the  procedure set                                                               
out in SB  15 does not quite address the  issue. In addition, she                                                               
expressed concern over  the fiscal impact to the  court system by                                                               
convening grand juries  not subject to the filter  of an attorney                                                               
at the  district attorney's office. That  process identifies when                                                               
something  warrants an  indictment,  she said.  Although she  has                                                               
other  issues with  SB  15,  she asked  members  to consider  the                                                               
biggest ones.                                                                                                                   
2:52:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  said he  found it  interesting that  the courts                                                               
could  not outline  the deficiencies  for a  grand jury  petition                                                               
when the  [Alaska Supreme Court]  essentially rewrote  the salmon                                                               
initiative [in August 2018 when  the state found Ballot Measure 1                                                               
unconstitutional]. He offered his belief  that the court's action                                                               
essentially signaled  future applicants  to "shoot for  the moon"                                                               
because the courts would rewrite  their initiatives so they could                                                               
be placed on the ballot. He  concluded that that having the court                                                               
involved is  not unprecedented, but  he was very  concerned about                                                               
that outcome.                                                                                                                   
He emphasized that his goal  was to provide an independent remedy                                                               
for individuals  to have their  unobstructed "day in  court" when                                                               
warranted. In many proceedings, how,  when, and what evidence can                                                               
be presented is  controlled by the court rules.  However, in very                                                               
rare cases,  it could  be difficult for  people to  present their                                                               
cases. He expressed  a willingness to try to figure  out a better                                                               
way forward to address this concern.                                                                                            
MS. MEADE said she was willing to do so.                                                                                        
2:53:53 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR SHOWER suggested  that part of the issue is  when  things                                                               
are  discovered  [after  the conviction].  He  acknowledged  that                                                               
tough questions arise, but civil  debate can flesh out issues and                                                               
ideas.  He  hoped  no  one  questioned  the  good  work  that  is                                                               
currently being done. He asked  if someone alleged issues similar                                                               
to ones on the Kenai  Peninsula, whether the party could petition                                                               
to have the case moved to a different venue.                                                                                    
MS.  MEADE responded  that [Mr.  Haeg] was  convicted by  a trial                                                               
court, which  she believed was in  Kenai. She said that  he would                                                               
not be entitled to a second trial in Fairbanks.                                                                                 
SENATOR SHOWER  asked if  a person feels  that they  were treated                                                               
unfairly, and evidence  arose similar to the disputed  map in Mr.                                                               
Haeg's case, whether  the person would have an  option to request                                                               
a change in venue.                                                                                                              
MS. MEADE  answered that she  was unsure,  but she did  not think                                                               
so. She said  that a change of venue is  available at pretrial if                                                               
significant  publicity  surrounding  a  case  would  prevent  the                                                               
defendant from  having fair jurors.  She suggested that  it might                                                               
be  possible for  a change  in venue  if the  party believed  the                                                               
community was not fair minded, but she was unsure.                                                                              
[SB 15 was held in committee.]                                                                                                  

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SJUD Agenda 3.11.19.pdf SJUD 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM
Senate Bill 15 Version A.PDF SJUD 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 15
SB 15 Sponsor Statement.pdf SJUD 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 15
SB 15 Sectional Analysis.pdf SJUD 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 15
SB 15 Capital Closeup Article 10.17.18.pdf SJUD 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 15
SB 15 NY Law Journal Article 9.6.11.pdf SJUD 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 15
SB 15 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.pdf SJUD 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 15
SB 15 State Research.pdf SJUD 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 15
Senate Bill 55, Version A.pdf SJUD 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 55
SB 55 - Sectional Summary.pdf SFIN 3/27/2019 9:00:00 AM
SJUD 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 55
SB 55 - Sponsor Statement.pdf SFIN 3/27/2019 9:00:00 AM
SJUD 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 55