02/25/2009 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB9 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 25, 2009
1:26 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 9
"An Act relating to murder; authorizing capital punishment,
classifying murder in the first degree as a capital felony, and
allowing the imposition of the death penalty for certain
murders; establishing sentencing procedures for capital
felonies; and amending Rules 32, 32.1, and 32.3, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and Rules 204, 209, 210, and 212, Alaska
Rules of Appellate Procedure."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 9
SHORT TITLE: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CHENAULT
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) JUD, FIN
02/23/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/23/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/25/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DIXIE A. HOOD, M.A.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to [defeat] HB 9.
SUSAN S. McLEAN, Acting Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 9.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 9.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner - Juneau
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 9.
QUINLAN G. STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 9.
RACHEL LEVITT, Director
Anchorage Office
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 9.
RICK SIKMA
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 9, provided
comments in favor of the death penalty.
THOMAS WEISE, Pastor
Cathedral of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB 9
and urged the committee to defeat the bill.
RICHARD DIETER, Executive Director
Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC)
Washington D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 9.
DAVID TOWNSEND (ph)
Healy, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 9.
SOPHIE CLARK (ph)
Klawock, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 9.
CHARLES ROHRBACHER, Deacon
Cathedral of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary;
Roman Catholic Diocese of Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB 9
and urged the committee to vote against it.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
House Majority Office
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 9, responded to
questions on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Mike
Chenault.
DENISE MORRIS, President/CEO
Alaska Native Justice Center (ANJC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 9, testified in
opposition to the death penalty.
ROBERT C. BUNDY, Attorney at Law
Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
Counsel
Alaska Native Justice Center (ANJC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 9.
SUE JOHNSON, Executive Director
Alaskans Against the Death Penalty
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 9.
ALFRED McKINLEY, SR.
Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB) Grand Camp
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 9, testified in
opposition to the death penalty.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:26:16 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:26 p.m. Representatives Ramras,
Dahlstrom, Gatto, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Gruenberg, Holmes, and Coghill arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 9 - CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
1:34:49 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 9, "An Act relating to murder; authorizing
capital punishment, classifying murder in the first degree as a
capital felony, and allowing the imposition of the death penalty
for certain murders; establishing sentencing procedures for
capital felonies; and amending Rules 32, 32.1, and 32.3, Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rules 204, 209, 210, and 212,
Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure." [Before the committee was
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 9, Version 26-
LS0036\E, Luckhaupt, 2/18/09, which was adopted as the work
draft on 2/23/09.]
1:35:02 PM
DIXIE A. HOOD, M.A., after recounting some personal history,
said she considers it to have been an enlightened move when
Alaska abolished the death penalty, and considers the effort to
reestablish the death penalty to be irrational, fiscally
irresponsible, and morally reprehensible. She shared that in
the mid-'80s she'd developed a substance abuse treatment program
for inmates of the Lemon Creek Correctional Center, which, at
the time, was the only facility in the state that housed those
convicted of the most serious and violent crimes. One thing
that disturbed her, she relayed, was the attitude of the guards,
who, in general, seemed to scorn the idea of rehabilitation and
interfered with rehabilitation efforts made by teachers,
counselors, and chaplains. Also disturbing, however, was the
disproportionate number of Alaska Native inmates - approximately
40 percent, even though statewide Alaska Natives constitute only
about 17 percent of the population.
MS. HOOD - after sharing some information about some of the
inmates she'd met, including that alcohol abuse seemed to be at
the root of their experiences - opined that life sentences
without possibility of parole would be sufficient to keep the
public safe. Noting that as a family counselor she has worked
with residents in halfway houses, co-led mens' anger management
groups, worked with substance abuse clients, counseled
perpetrators and victims of domestic violence (DV), and worked
with dropouts and runaways, she opined that there is a great
need for additional funding of educational and social services,
and preventative and rehabilitative programs. Alaska's public
funds should be used for more such services and programs instead
of for hiring the additional staff and constructing the
execution facility required with the institution of a death
penalty. In conclusion, she urged the committee to kill HB 9,
not human beings.
MS. HOOD, in response to questions, said punishment seems to be
the justification used for putting people in prison, and
clarified that one of her points is that if more funding had
been provided for educational and social services, and for
preventative and rehabilitative programs, particularly in rural
areas of the state, then a lot of the crimes that have occurred,
and the substance-abuse related problems that have arisen, would
have been prevented.
1:44:54 PM
SUSAN S. McLEAN, Acting Deputy Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law (DOL), in response to a question,
relayed that members' packets now include statistics from the
Department of Corrections (DOC) illustrating the number of
inmates convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree
from 1972 through 2008; a breakdown of that number indicates
that 105 inmates received sentences of between 90 and 99 years,
and 12 inmates received sentences of over 100 years.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated interest in obtaining
statistics regarding how many of those inmates were found to be
mentally retarded.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to the list of mitigating factors
in proposed AS 12.58.050, and questioned whether Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorder (FASD) ought to be included as a mitigating
factor.
MS. McLEAN indicated that if FASD is defined by the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-
IV), as a mental disease or defect, then it would qualify as a
mitigating factor [under proposed AS 12.58.050(9)], which read:
the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the
wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct or to conform
the defendant's conduct to the requirements of law was
substantially impaired as a result of mental disease
or defect; however, a person found to be mentally
retarded under AS 12.58.060 may not be sentenced to
death;
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that under [proposed AS 12.58.100],
the Alaska Supreme Court has 60 days to review the judgment of
conviction of a capital felony.
1:51:06 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Administrative Staff,
Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System
(ACS), in response to a question, said that that 60-day
timeframe isn't realistic, though the court can extend that
timeframe for good cause. The national average for resolving an
appeal before a state supreme court in a capital [punishment]
case is 699 days, and a recent study conducted by the State of
Arizona indicated [an average] of 870 days. The ACS estimates
that a capital punishment case - assuming a three-month trial -
will probably generate about 24,000 pages of transcripts; in
Arizona, it takes about five months to get transcripts to its
supreme court, and in another state, it takes about a year to
get transcripts to its supreme court. He surmised that the
review timeframe would be extended in every case, as allowed
under the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that [proposed AS 12.58.100 also]
mandates that the review by the Alaska Supreme Court has
priority over all other cases, and asked whether there are other
types of supreme court cases that have been given specific
priority in the law.
MR. WOOLIVER said that as a practical matter, election
challenges follow a fast track. However, under the bill, death
penalty cases will trump all other cases, and one way the ACS
will attempt to offset the impact of death penalty cases on the
Alaska Supreme Court will be through the use of an appellate
staff attorney with expertise in [death penalty cases]; Arizona
has done this, New York did it before its death penalty statutes
were found to be unconstitutional, and Illinois [is]
recommending doing it as well.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether the timeframe outlined in
proposed AS 12.58.110 - Issuance of a death warrant - is
sufficient.
1:55:15 PM
MR. WOOLIVER said that that timeframe won't trump what's
required by the [U.S. Constitution], that being extensive review
by all levels of courts.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether the court would have the
ability to extend the timeframe [outlined in proposed AS
12.58.010] that the attorney general would have to seek the
death penalty.
MR. WOOLIVER said he doesn't know. In response to another
question, he relayed that the ACS has not taken a position on
HB 9.
MS. McLEAN relayed that the DOL has not taken a position on
HB 9.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner
- Juneau, Department of Corrections (DOC), relayed that the DOC
has not taken a position on HB 9.
1:58:19 PM
QUINLAN G. STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), relayed that
the PDA has not taken a position on HB 9.
1:58:32 PM
RACHEL LEVITT, Director, Anchorage Office, Office of Public
Advocacy (OPA), Department of Administration (DOA), relayed that
the OPA has not taken a position on HB 9.
MS. McLEAN, in response to another question, clarified that
under the bill, a person who commits the crime of murder of an
unborn child would be exempted from a sentence of death.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO observed that language on page 9, lines 1-
3, says in part: A defendant convicted of murder of an unborn
child under AS 11.41.150(a)(1) shall be sentenced to a definite
term of imprisonment of at least 20 years but not more than 99
years."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN shared his belief that the death penalty
should also apply to the crime of murder of an unborn child
because a life is a life.
MR. PEEPLES, in response to questions, said that the DOC is
assuming it would not have to house someone sentenced to death
until 2012; that until someone is sentenced to death, the DOC
would handle inmates charged with a capital felony the same way
it handles all other inmates charged with murder; that the DOC
is assuming that death penalty cases would involve a very long
appeals process - the national average being up to 13 years;
that the DOC anticipates reserving one unit at the Spring Creek
Correctional Center for housing inmates who've been sentenced to
death; that in anticipation that there would at some point in
time be some death sentences to be carried out, the DOC would
build a small "death house" out of view of the rest of the
aforementioned correctional facility; and that most of the time
that death house would be kept in a state of readiness but not
staffed.
MR. PEEPLES indicated that once a death sentence is to be
carried out, that death house would be staffed with people on
overtime until after the execution, and that the DOC would
address any additional staffing needs via the regular budget
process. He surmised that the DOC would work with the ACS and
the DOL to come up with an anticipated rate of accrual of those
sentenced to death, and then make adjustments to the DOC's
fiscal note for HB 9.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether states with a death
penalty offer specialized training or psychological evaluations
for those responsible for carrying out the executions.
MR. PEEPLES said, "We are aware of that; we would be walking
through the psychological." He indicated that the DOC would not
have the same staff in the death house for every execution, and
that such staff would be chosen on a volunteer basis, and would
not be the same people as would be managing the remainder of the
unit's population. In response to another question, he said he
is not familiar with any studies regarding the effects on staff
of having to execute someone, but surmised that such studies
have been conducted. In response to a further question, he
indicated that the DOC anticipates taking extra steps to comply
with the enactment of HB 9 and to deal with the effects of
executing people - including increased stress levels associated
with the approach of an execution date - and that those extra
steps are outlined in the DOC's fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned whether those sentenced to death
are typically kept sedated prior to execution.
MR. PEEPLES said he would research that issue.
MS. McLEAN, in further response to an earlier question,
clarified that HB 9 would not change the current penalty for the
crime of murder of an unborn child.
2:16:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to proposed AS 58.060(5), and asked
which test would be used to determine whether a person has an IQ
of 70 or below, and whether the issue of which test would be
used ought to be clarified, particularly given that different
tests could result in different IQ scores.
MS. McLEAN relayed that the U.S. Supreme Court Case, Atkins v.
Virginia addresses the issue of mental retardation and capital
punishment; that the language [in the bill] was taken directly
from that case; and that in that case the court took its
language directly from the DSM-IV, which, she surmised, is what
would be used by licensed clinicians when making a diagnosis of
mental retardation. In response to a question, she acknowledged
that the issue of who would be making such a diagnosis could be
further clarified in the bill.
MR. WOOLIVER, in response to a question regarding testing of
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence, offered his understanding
that nationally such testing has resulted in a number of people
on death row being exonerated.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out, though, that Alaska currently doesn't
require post-conviction testing of DNA, and surmised that that
issue would probably have to be revisited should HB 9 become
law.
2:24:00 PM
MR. STEINER, in response to a question, said he is not aware of
any case occurring in Alaska in which a person convicted of
[murder] was later exonerated because of DNA testing.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked what percentage of violent crimes
actually have DNA evidence associated with them.
MS. McLEAN offered her understanding that DNA evidence is more
often a deciding factor in sexual assault cases then it is in
homicide cases. It would be the rare homicide case that rested
solely upon DNA evidence, she added.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MR. STEINER concurred that DNA evidence is more commonly used in
sexual assault cases than in murder cases.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MR. STEINER, in response to comments, pointed out that the
methods for testing DNA evidence have changed over the years -
and that relates directly to whether post-conviction "retesting"
is appropriate - and that recently there has also been wide
criticism of the techniques used to process DNA and other
scientific evidence as creating potential unreliability. That
is an issue that remains subject to litigation, and can thus
drive up the cost of cases [reliant upon such evidence].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that a study conducted by the
National Academy of Sciences appears to be questioning the
reliability of DNA evidence, and offered her recollection that
the Department of Public Safety (DPS) had recently relayed to
the committee that some of the DNA samples it had sent out of
state had been contaminated.
2:29:44 PM
RICK SIKMA observed that society's increasing tolerance for just
about everything has carried over into not having consequences
for wrongdoing. He said he has been involved in prison ministry
for about 30 years and has counseled those who have committed
murder, and relayed that when he's asked such convicts why they
killed someone, their response has been that they knew they
could get away with it, and when he's asked them whether they
would still have committed murder if they'd known they would
face the death penalty, they've said that that would have
prevented them from committing the murder. He therefore
disagrees with the argument that instituting the death penalty
won't have a deterrent effect, he remarked, adding, "I believe
that there should be a death penalty; however, if we have the
death penalty, ... we have to make certain that the person is
guilty of what they've ... [been accused of doing], and that we
don't make any mistakes, because death is very final." He
mentioned that he's also counseled those whose loved ones were
murdered, and they've been concerned that the person who killed
their loved one won't face any consequences other than a prison
sentence that ends after [several] years. In conclusion, he
said he thinks that the death penalty should be passed into law.
2:33:55 PM
THOMAS WEISE, Pastor, Cathedral of the Nativity of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, after mentioning that the pastor who's witnessed 95
executions at Huntsville Unit in Texas would be speaking in
Juneau next month, read a paragraph from a document pertaining
to the use of Centering Prayer in Folsom State Prison. Father
Weise said he believes strongly that society needs to be
protected from dangerous people, and surmised that what's being
debated are the differences between a life sentence and the
death penalty. In conclusion, he urged the committee to defeat
HB 9.
2:38:53 PM
RICHARD DIETER, Executive Director, Death Penalty Information
Center (DPIC), noting that he is also an adjunct professor
teaching a course on the death penalty at the Catholic
University of America Columbus School of Law, explained that the
DPIC is a nonprofit organization that conducts research,
releases reports, and provides a national perspective on death
penalty issues. He went on to say:
Around the country, the death penalty has become both
unwieldy and a liability to many states. What we're
seeing is a declining use in the death penalty, a
dramatic 60 percent drop in death sentences and [a] 50
percent drop in executions. Fewer states now have the
death penalty - New York and New Jersey recently
dropped it - [and there is] less public support for
the death penalty. And I think the reason why this
decline in the use is occurring is because of the
cases of innocence. There's now been 130 people who
have been freed from death row since the death penalty
came back in the 1970s. It's not the fact that these
cases are all old ones; more than half of them
occurred since 1995, and there were four more last
year.
The most prominent ones are the ones with DNA testing,
and I think those are significant because they
indicate that sometimes the system - the trials, the
appeals, the commutations, even - miss the innocent
people, and it takes something outside the system,
namely science or sometimes journalists or sometimes
volunteer lawyers, to find out who is innocent. That
has shaken the public's confidence in the death
penalty, so support has dropped, and what we're seeing
around the country is states actually reconsidering
... [whether to] have the death penalty. There are
now eight states that have legislation to abolish the
death penalty; they are finding that [the death
penalty is] ... not producing what they expected.
A typical example would be New Jersey, which had the
death penalty for 25 years [but] no executions; they
estimated their expenses were $253 million over those
years. And now in the state of Kansas, actually,
where they're also considering a bill to abolish it,
again, 15 years of the death penalty [but] no
executions and, frankly, none on the horizon. The
death penalty is becoming harder to implement because
our whole system has been shaken ... by the
revelations of the mistakes, and that has ...
[resulted in] a tighter scrutiny on this. It is also
increased the time between sentencing and execution.
It is now at its longest time - close to 13 years -
between ... when the average person is sentenced, to
when they're executed.
MR. DIETER, in conclusion, said he thinks that there are a lot
of reasons for a state to think twice about both the practical
costs and the judicial costs associated with the death penalty.
In response to questions, he explained that since 1973, there
have been 130 people on death row who were either acquitted of
all charges or had all charges dropped by the prosecution - 17
of those 130 people were freed as a result of DNA testing; that
from 1973 to present, approximately 8,000 people have been
sentenced to death; and that in that time, there have been about
1,100 executions. So for every nine people who have been
executed, another one person has been freed as innocent.
MR. DIETER, in response to another question, said that
approximately 15,000 murders are committed every year in the
U.S.; that 115 people received the death sentence [in 2007]; and
that 37 people were executed in 2008. He surmised that if the
people on death row hadn't gotten the death sentence, they would
have instead gotten the maximum penalty that a state had to
offer. In response to a further question, he said those states
that are considering abolishing their death penalty are now also
citing costs as a factor. If the goal is to prevent innocent
people from even being convicted to begin with, then money must
be spent on a quality defense program, on training for judges
and prosecutors, and on a full appeals process, because costs
and innocence, and costs and representation are related. States
with the death penalty are now questioning what they are
actually getting for all the money they are spending on the
death penalty. Almost all states with a death penalty have no
more than one execution in a year, though last year and the year
before most states with the death penalty had no executions.
Also, the amount of time before an execution actually occurs is
getting longer.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
2:49:23 PM
MR. DIETER, in response to a question, surmised that two
expectations of a death penalty are retribution and deterrence.
He's heard testimony, however, indicating that the "victims'
community" is becoming frustrated because although retribution
is promised, it doesn't actually happen; not only do death
penalty cases take 13-15 years to conclude, most death penalty
cases are overturned for reasons other than innocence, and so
only about one-fourth of those sentenced to death are actually
executed. Furthermore, because the death penalty is rarely
applied, it doesn't send much of a deterrence message; the
states with the death penalty have higher murder rates then
those states that have abolished the death penalty.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned how long appeals take for cases
involving death sentences compared to cases involving life-in-
prison sentences.
MR. DIETER relayed that the big difference is that the death
sentence is not carried out for 15 years, if ever, whereas
someone sentenced to life in prison is actually serving that
sentence even through the appeal process. Another difference is
that for a death sentence case, a lawyer - sometimes more than
one - is assigned to the case for the entire appeal process, and
that's not true for cases involving a life-in-prison sentence.
Yet another difference is that a death penalty case will likely
be overturned - about 68 percent of such cases are overturned -
whereas a life-in-prison case, in addition to being less
controversial, will likely never be overturned - less than 10
percent of "other criminal" cases are overturned.
2:53:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there is a trend in legal
decisions from federal courts towards expanding the scope of the
death penalty.
MR. DIETER said that during the past 10 years there has been a
clear tendency towards narrowing it; for example, the mentally
retarded and juveniles are now excluded from receiving the death
penalty, the death penalty now no longer applies to crimes other
than murder, and states are now required to spend more money on
defense in death penalty cases.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned how many of the 1,100 people
who've been executed since 1973 would [still be alive] because
of changes in the law had they not been executed when they were.
MR. DIETER, remarking that that would be hard to determine,
surmised that there are probably eight executed persons who
might have been exonerated had DNA testing been available.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he wants statistics
detailing how many [would not have been executed] due to changes
in the law as opposed to scientific advances. For example, how
many were mentally retarded, and how many were guilty of rape
rather than murder.
MR. DIETER acknowledged that all who were executed before they
turned 18 years of age would not have been executed because of a
change in the law, as would all who were mentally retarded - and
some estimate that to be about 10 percent of those on death row.
And although no one has been executed for the crime of rape
recently, there were people on death row for that crime. He
surmised, therefore, that perhaps hundreds of the people who
were executed would today have been spared. In response to a
question, offered his recollection that approximately 35 people
under the age of 18 were executed. In response to another
question, he offered to research the issue further and provide
the committee with more statistics.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
3:02:33 PM
DAVID TOWNSEND (ph) said he has mixed feeling about the death
penalty. If one of his family members were to be harmed in such
a way as to warrant the death penalty for the perpetrator, then
that's what should happen, he opined, but surmised that the
costs associated with instituting the death penalty would be too
great.
3:04:01 PM
SOPHIE CLARK (ph) explained that a teacher at her school whom
she knew was murdered, and so she is familiar with how that can
affect everyone who knows a murder victim. She said she doesn't
really know if a death sentence is an appropriate punishment,
particularly given that it's often said that one should treat
others how one would like to be treated, and given that it is
incongruent to kill people for their crimes while admonishing
others not to kill.
3:06:38 PM
CHARLES ROHRBACHER, Deacon, Cathedral of the Nativity of the
Blessed Virgin Mary; Roman Catholic Diocese of Juneau, said that
as a catholic, he is pro-life and believes that as a society,
people have a duty to protect human life from conception to
natural death. In keeping with the church's magisterial
teaching, as a matter of faith and as a matter of principle, he
relayed, he is opposed to capital punishment in every
circumstance. Offering his personal experience with the death
penalty, he said:
In 1977, I was ... [a] journalist, and I became
involved in the case of a young Korean immigrant named
Chol Soo Lee. He'd been wrongfully convicted in 1973
of a gang slaying in San Francisco, and while he was
in prison he was attacked by another inmate and, in
self defense, he killed his attacker. But having been
convicted as a gang killer already, his plea of self
defense was quickly pushed aside, and in short order
he was convicted and sentenced to death and put on
death row in San Quentin [State] Prison. Now, as a
journalist, I helped in the investigation of the
circumstances of that first degree murder conviction
that landed Chol Soo Lee in prison in the first place.
We discovered that he'd been convicted on the basis of
being identified as the murderer by white tourists in
[San Francisco's] China Town who'd witnessed the crime
from a distance, and, unfortunately, for them, all
Asians seemed to look alike. He barely spoke English,
his public defender got a change of venue and then
pulled out of the case two weeks before trial, and
then he was defended by a pro bono attorney who was
appointed by the court at the last minute with no
investigation. In addition, there was a tremendous
amount of political pressure from the public and from
municipal authorities to get a conviction.
MR. ROHRBACHER continued:
Years later, it was even discovered that police and
prosecutors had suppressed important exculpatory
evidence; they failed to inform his defense attorney
that the police had statements from other witnesses to
the crime who had told police that he wasn't the
gunman or who identified an entirely different person
as the killer. In 1982, after he spent eight years of
solitary confinement on death row in San Quentin
[State Prison], Chol Soo Lee was granted a new trial,
was completely exonerated, was acquitted by a jury,
and released from prison.
Now, my involvement in the struggle to save this
innocent young man from execution taught me this:
that human beings are inherently fallible; human
beings can be relied on to make mistakes from time to
time; they can be relied on to get things wrong; [and]
they can be relied on to even act carelessly and
sometimes even unjustly. Our institutions, including
our judicial system, are human institutions and,
therefore, they're inherently fallible.
Now ordinarily, when our courts make mistakes -
inevitable mistakes - it's possible to rectify the
wrong done and restore a wrongfully convicted person's
liberty to them. But the death penalty is irrevocable
- it's beyond the powers of limited and fallible human
beings to bring a wrongfully executed person back from
the dead. And because of [the] fallibility of human
beings and of human institutions, one thing is
certain: innocent men and women have and will be
condemned to death, and they have and will be
executed.
MR. ROHRBACHER went on to say:
My son used to introduce me to people [as], "This is
my dad, he works for the Pope" - which is true, except
he doesn't sign my paycheck. And the person I work
for, the Pope, is infallible, but only in matters of
faith and morals; even he would be the first to say
that he's not infallible when it comes to matters of
life and death and of criminal justice. I think that
the possibility, even the probability, that despite
whatever safeguards may be in place, that innocent
persons might die at the hands our State authorities
should deter us, should deter you, from restoring the
death penalty in our state. And so for this reason I
urge you to vote against this.
3:11:31 PM
MR. ROHRBACHER, in response to a question, explained that the
Catholic Church - "from the Pope on down" - is opposed to the
death penalty; it would be gravely sinful to inflict death on
anyone for the purpose of retribution or revenge, and there are
now less severe, less violent, ways of protecting society, and
so those in public leadership positions have a moral obligation
to choose those less violent ways when seeking societal self-
protection.
3:17:23 PM
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, House Majority Office, Alaska State
Legislature, in response to a question, relayed that when
discussing the bill with the drafter, Mr. Luckhaupt explained
that no other state's death penalty law provides a sentence of
death for the murder of an unborn child, and neither does the
federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. This is why
HB 9 provides that the crime of murder of an unborn child won't
be subject to the death penalty.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that he's received a memorandum from
the drafter addressing that issue, and mentioned that he may
propose an amendment [altering that provision].
MS. McLEAN, in response to a question, surmised that the court
would decide what level of practitioner would be administering
the test regarding mental retardation; that it would be left to
that person to decide which test to use; and that the outcome of
that test will be subject to litigation.
MR. WRIGHT reiterated that proposed AS 12.58.010 of Version E -
which incorporates changes suggested by the DOL and complies
with new U.S. Supreme Court findings - now authorizes the
attorney general, rather than the district attorney, to
determine whether to seek the death penalty; now has a notice
period of 120 days instead of 10 days; and now provides that
that notice period may be extended by the court.
MS. McLEAN added that the longer notice period is a more
reasonable amount of time in which to determine whether a case
warrants pursuit of the death penalty.
MR. WRIGHT reiterated that proposed AS 12.58.020 now provides
that a separate sentencing procedure shall be conducted before
the same jury that determined guilt. At the suggestion of the
DOL, that proposed section also now provides a standard of
"beyond a reasonable doubt" - the highest standard available and
already defined; contains language stating that the jurors need
not agree on the specific aggravating factor; and now provides
that the jury must find that death is the appropriate sentence
for the defendant.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether the standard of "no
reasonable doubt" is used by other states [with a death
penalty].
MR. WRIGHT said no. He then indicated that proposed AS
12.58.030 now contains conforming language.
MS. McLEAN added that the changes made in Version E's proposed
AS 12.58.030 simply clarify that the jury must make findings.
3:25:24 PM
MR. WRIGHT mentioned that proposed AS 12.58.040, which lists the
aggravating factors that may be considered, now addresses serial
killing via language that says:
(3) the defendant has been convicted of murdering two
or more individuals under AS 11.41.100, or a similar
law of this or another jurisdiction, regardless of
whether the deaths occurred as the result of the same
act or of several related or unrelated acts;
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES surmised that that aggravating factor
would apply to someone being sentenced after just being
convicted of murdering more than one person.
MR. WRIGHT concurred. He then explained that proposed AS
12.58.050 now pertains to "relevant" mitigating factors; the
addition of the word "relevant" was made to conform to a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked who determines relevancy.
MS. McLEAN said the court would. In response to a question, she
explained that the defined body of law regarding that issue
indicates that the court should not exclude any possible
mitigating factors, and defines "relevance" as anything that
tends to make a fact more likely than not.
MR. WRIGHT relayed that under Version E, proposed AS
12.58.100(b)(3) now says that on review, the court shall
determine whether the sentence is excessive compared to the
penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and
the defendant; this language change gave rise to the inclusion
language regarding excessive review found in Section 27.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MR. WRIGHT relayed that Version E's proposed AS 12.58.310(b) now
ensures that a person who is found incompetent to be sentenced
to death will still receive a sentence commiserate with the
crime he/she committed; this addresses a concern expressed by
the DOL.
MS. McLEAN, in response to a question, said that under current
statute, the court - at the time of sentencing - has the ability
to restrict discretionary-parole eligibility.
MR. WRIGHT relayed that Section 27 was included in Version E to
address the fact that Alaska doesn't currently have a death
penalty, and so the first death penalty case may end up setting
the standard for reviewing whether a sentence of death is
excessive.
MS. McLEAN, to correct an answer she gave earlier, explained
that the administration, in concept, supports capital punishment
but has not yet decided exactly which statutory changes it would
support.
MR. WRIGHT, referring to the 60-day review period for the Alaska
Supreme Court stipulated in proposed AS 12.58.100, indicated
that [the sponsor] is aware that that review will take longer
than 60 days and so will get that issue clarified with the
drafter.
CHAIR RAMRAS turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.
3:34:25 PM
DENISE MORRIS, President/CEO, Alaska Native Justice Center
(ANJC), said she would be speaking in opposition to the death
penalty, and mentioned that other [testifiers] have already
expressed some of her concerns. She went on to say:
The death penalty is racially and economically
[biased]. It claims innocent [lives]. It is not a
deterrent. The cost is [significantly] greater than
life in prison without parole. In addition, it
appears that the national trend is to [abolish] the
death penalty, and yet we are thinking of ...
reinstating the death penalty in Alaska. And I want
to give a little history about the disparate treatment
in Alaska. When Alaska was a territory, there were
six individual men that were hanged under the
territorial legislation; of those men, three were
Alaska Native, two were African American, one was
another person of color, yet most of the capital
crimes and murders committed were committed by non-
minority individuals.
And then, after a prolonged debate, the death penalty
was abolished, and the two individuals that sponsored
that measure were Warren Taylor and Vic Fischer, and
Vic Fischer stated that one factor motivating
abolishing the death penalty was apparent racial bias
in the application of the death penalty. Today, the
Alaska Native community is extremely concerned because
Alaska Natives currently, today, represent over 36
percent of the incarcerated population across the
state, yet we only represent 16 percent of the
population as a whole and only 13 percent of those old
enough to be imprisoned.
MS. MORRIS continued:
As indicated by the status report of the Alaska
Supreme Court [Advisory Committee] on Fairness and
Access ..., on average, Alaska Natives receive longer
sentences and more severe or harsh sentences in
addition. Native defendants spend 26 [percent] more
time incarcerated during the total span of their
cases. [For] ... violent offenses, Alaska Natives
spend 58 percent more time incarcerated, and for drug
cases, Alaska Natives spent 139 percent more time
incarcerated. The report highlighted other
unwarranted disparities such as having a public
attorney versus a private attorney. Defendants with
private attorneys spent 55 percent less time
[incarcerated] pre-disposition; they spent 56
[percent] less [time] ... incarcerated, post-
disposition; and 93 percent overall less time
incarcerated during their case.
And, unfortunately, Alaska Native youth in the justice
system aren't faring any better; they comprise 20
percent of the juvenile justice population, but 30
percent of the juveniles within the Division of
Juvenile Justice, 30 percent of the referrals from the
Department of Law, 39 percent of the youths detained
in detention facilities, and over 40 percent of the
youth in (indisc.) Division of Juvenile Justice
treatment provisions.
And there's a lot of reasons cited for those basic
disparities, and some of those ... factors leading to
this are: inadequate legal representation; police and
prosecutorial misconduct; perjured testimony and
mistaken eyewitness testimony; suppression or
misinterpretation [of] ... evidence [and], in rural
Alaska, lack of evidence; law enforcement has been
underfunded in rural Alaska; [Village Public Safety
Officer (VPSOs)] have been ... underfunded in rural
Alaska - as I sit here today, there's probably 60 to
65 communities that have absolutely no law enforcement
present whatsoever; and also ... there's a tremendous
amount of community pressure to solve cases.
3:39:06 PM
MS. MORRIS also said:
In addition, there's already ... mistrust ... [in]
Alaska by the minority community, not only the Alaska
Native community, but I also know that the [National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP)] also opposes the death penalty or the
reinstatement of the death penalty in Alaska. And it
will divide residents of Alaska versus uniting us as
citizens. It's also against traditional Alaska Native
values and, [as indicated by] other people that have
testified here today, it's also against other
Alaskans' values and belief systems.
There's already tremendous mistrust as it relates to
Alaska Natives' confidence in the fairness of the
justice system. ... I think it's important to know
[that] as an Alaska Native woman, I am four and a half
times more likely to be a homicide victim, [and]
African American women are more likely to be homicide
[victims] - we are going to be the victims - and yet
we are the groups that oppose reinstatement of the
death penalty because we will also be those that are
disparately treated by the death penalty. We know a
lot of people here today talked about accountability,
... [but] we need to hold ourselves accountable. As
Alaskans, we can't simply say we live in a country
that offers equal justice, when racial and economic
disparities plague the system by which our society
imposes the ultimate punishment.
MS. MORRIS, in closing, relayed that according to a bibliography
of rural justice studies compiled by the University of Alaska
Anchorage (UAA) Justice Center, there is not even one
report/study that says instituting the death penalty in Alaska
will be a deterrent to crime; every one of those studies/reports
says exactly the opposite. She added:
We need to spend more dollars [on] ... treatment
programs, prevention programs, boys and girls [clubs],
and those [kinds] of programs that have a proven
record of preventing crime and deterring crime in our
communities, and not [spend] ... limited resources on
a program that other states have already proven
doesn't work and doesn't deter crime.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, remarking that justice is not colorblind
in Alaska, asked whether there are any statistics regarding the
types of charges being brought, for commensurate crimes, against
Alaska Natives versus other groups of people, or regarding
whether the sentences being handed out for the crime of murder
in first degree are longer for certain groups of people.
MS. MORRIS relayed that national statistics indicate that 55
percent of the people on death row are African Americans, and
there is no reason, she opined, to believe that Alaska Natives
and African Americans would fair any better in Alaska should the
death penalty be reinstituted.
3:43:35 PM
MS. MORRIS, in response to another question, pointed out that
the justice system is a human system and, as such, is subject to
fallacies; so if an individual is [wrongfully] serving a
sentence of life in prison, [the courts] have the ability to
correct that mistake, but with the death penalty, once a person
is [wrongfully] executed, the option of correcting that mistake
is no longer available - all that can be done is to offer
apologies to that person's family.
MS. MORRIS, in response to a further question, offered her
belief that there are economical biases [within the justice
system]. For example, when faced with being incarcerated even
for a misdemeanor and deciding whether to accept a plea
agreement, people consider the economical factors of doing so,
such as whether they have the money to pay for a private
attorney, and if the answer is no, the perception then is that
if they are then assigned a public defender, they will simply be
getting what they paid for. Furthermore, the ANJC receives
calls from people from small, rural communities seeking travel
funds because they don't have the economic resources necessary
to go to trial in the larger cities where the courts are
located. These people don't have the financial resources, or
anybody to watch their children, or money for airfare, or, when
they are employed, the ability to get time off from work, and
there is no guarantee that they will be successful in court
should they choose to fight the charges against them.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN agreed, but noted that a person's ability or
inability to pay a lot for a defense lawyer would still be a
factor regardless of the crime he/she is charged with or the
sentence he/she faces. Explaining that he'd once served as a
law enforcement officer in the "ghetto areas" of Tucson,
Arizona, he recalled that most of the [violent] crimes committed
by members of a minority were committed on other members of that
same minority. What justice is afforded those victims, he
queried, since it's the minorities who are victims of a
preponderance of the crimes committed.
MS. MORRIS relayed that the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
has adamantly come out in opposition and has an affidavit in
opposition to the death penalty, and that the NAACP has a legal
defense fund for assisting individuals who've been sentenced to
death. She surmised, therefore, that minority groups across the
nation oppose the death penalty even though they are
overrepresented as victims of crimes subject to the death
penalty, because when the gallows swing, there is no question
for whom they swing.
3:47:55 PM
ROBERT C. BUNDY, Attorney at Law, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP,
Counsel, Alaska Native Justice Center (ANJC), relayed that
almost half of his 35-year career has been spent as a
prosecutor; that he was the district attorney in Nome and
covered many of the villages in the Nome and Kotzebue areas;
that he was the assistant district attorney and chief assistant
district attorney in Anchorage for a number of years; and that
he was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Alaska for a number
of years. He concurred with the comments made by Ms. Morris,
adding that statistics illustrate that the death penalty is
imposed disproportionately when the victim is white and the
perpetrator isn't. He also relayed that he was counsel of
record in the U.S. District Court case and the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals case involving defendant William G. Osborne; the U.S.
Supreme Court is scheduled to hear this case [on 3/2/09] as it
pertains to DNA testing. In working on Mr. Osborne's case, he
explained, he worked closely with the Innocence Project, and
became interested in what it is about the justice system that
would allow for all the wrongful convictions seen via Innocence
Project exonerations.
MR. BUNDY went on to explain that Innocence Project exonerations
pertain to actual, factual innocence, wherein DNA testing has
excluded the person as the perpetrator of the crime after he/she
has been convicted. The testing of DNA evidence came into its
own in the mid-1990s with what's known as the [y-STR] method,
and although this testing method can eliminate a person to the
exclusion of everyone else, it can't absolutely include a
person. One point to be gleaned from that DNA exclusion process
and the Innocence Project cases is that there have been about
220 men and women that have been exonerated, factually, via the
use of post-conviction DNA testing; 17 of those had been
sentenced to death and 30 more had been sentenced to life in
prison without parole in those states that didn't have the death
penalty. Furthermore, 85 percent of convictions on serious
charges - rapes, serious assaults, homicides - do not involve
biological evidence suitable for DNA testing, and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has also indicated that in 24
percent the cases in which it does get DNA evidence to analyze,
the person identified as the principal suspect was excluded.
MR. BUNDY pointed out that in rural Alaska in particular, there
isn't the ability to collect [biological] evidence in an
appropriate manner because of a lack of law enforcement presence
- either at all or immediately - or because of the many things
that can happen during the evidence-gathering process between
the time a victim is murdered or seriously injured and the time
a case gets to trial. Furthermore, even the crime labs in urban
areas of the state such as in Anchorage are overloaded. The
experience regarding DNA evidence, he continued, has pointed out
a problem which he referred to as the "tunnel vision" of those
working in the justice system; regardless that law enforcement
officers/investigators, judges, prosecutors, and jurors are
trying to do a good job in an honorable fashion, they are still
human beings, and once they focus on a particular person as
being the guilty party, it becomes very difficult for them to
then accept evidence to the contrary. In case after case after
case, the Innocence Project has shown that even appellate judges
have said things along the lines of, "On review of this record,
the evidence of guilt is overwhelming." These are the very
cases that result in even the supporters of the death penalty
wanting assurance that it will only be applied to the truly
guilty. But it's very, very difficult to ensure that, and
that's been illustrated, he said in conclusion, adding that the
written summary of his testimony cites an article on the
psychological phenomenon of tunnel vision.
3:54:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that tunnel vision increases the
lack of credibility in the justice system, and although a death
penalty sentence provides strong incentive for trying to protect
against tunnel vision, people who've simply received some of the
longer sentences available "never get that second look."
MR. BUNDY concurred, reiterating that about 85 percent of cases
don't have the kind of biological evidence that's suitable for
DNA testing. Furthermore, there is no way to test against all
the other forms of evidence which, when combined, can result in
a wrongful conviction, such as eyewitness testimony, "jailhouse
snitches," and microscopic comparisons.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that a lot of work is still
going to have to be done to address the credibility of the
justice system and to move forward with post-conviction DNA
testing.
MR. BUNDY explained that [some of what] contributes to tunnel
vision is that the types of crimes that would be subject to the
death penalty are generally the most heinous crimes and are
[therefore] highly publicized; so there is a tremendous amount
of pressure on everybody in the system to "solve the case and
see justice done," thus increasing the probability that a
mistake will be made [and an innocent person will be executed],
because no one wants to be the one that delays the case. He
said that he's been involved in four death penalty cases, and
characterized them as the most excruciating and difficult cases
he's ever seen, adding that there is very little satisfaction to
be obtained from [the death penalty process].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, explaining that she did not mean to
impugn anyone's integrity with her comment that justice is not
colorblind, concurred with Mr. Bundy that everyone involved in
such cases is a human being and is therefore fallible.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
3:59:29 PM
SUE JOHNSON, Executive Director, Alaskans Against the Death
Penalty, noted that she became involved with Alaskans Against
the Death Penalty when then Senator Robin Taylor introduced a
death penalty bill [during the Twentieth Alaska State
Legislature], and that since the introduction of HB 9,
membership in Alaskans Against the Death Penalty has grown
exponentially. The importance of personal education about the
death penalty cannot be overstated, she remarked, and noted that
when she'd first become involved with this issue, she'd been
reluctant to believe that the [alleged] unfairness associated
with all aspects of the death penalty was actually occurring in
this country, and so she'd conducted her own independent
research.
MS. JOHNSON said that in addition to reading books, watching
films, and interviewing exonerated people, law enforcement
personnel, murder victims' family members, and others with
firsthand knowledge of death-penalty intricacies, she's read
about governors in states that have the death penalty who
continue to be haunted by the people they've executed and who've
said that that was the absolute worst part of their job. She
said she's also read about politicians who've regretted having
supported death penalty legislation - especially when they've
discovered that that legislation may have resulted in the
execution of innocent people. She said she's learned about
states that have spent millions of dollars building death houses
that were never used. She offered her belief that if the State
builds a death house here in Alaska, it won't be used, and if it
is used, it won't be for another 20-25 years and thus any
executions that do occur will be the responsibility of future
legislators.
MS. JOHNSON relayed that after all her research, she has
concluded that the death penalty is wrong for hundreds of
reasons. Alaskans Against the Death Penalty, she added,
believes that the majority of Alaskans support its side of the
issue and oppose the death penalty. She then explained that
she'd had a friend - the mother of three [small children] - who
was murdered by her friend's husband, that she sat through the
trial in an effort to support her friend's parents, and that
while watching them go through the gory details of their only
daughter's murder, she was very happy that there wasn't a death
penalty in Alaska because she couldn't bear the thought of
seeing her friend's parents go through all of the trials and
delays that are the norm with death penalty cases - not to
mention dealing with all of the media exposure a death penalty
case can result in. In closing, Ms. Johnson said that if the
morality of this issue is not enough to persuade anyone who is
undecided on this issue, then the cost issues - during these
economic times - should be; reliable data illustrates that the
State would face far greater costs in litigating a death penalty
case through the appellate levels than it would face for
litigating a sentence of life in prison.
4:04:18 PM
ALFRED McKINLEY, SR., Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB) Grand
Camp, noted that when Alaska was a territory, only minorities
were being executed - the last one being an African American who
was executed by hanging right here in Juneau - and that that is
one of the reasons why the people of Alaska, not just Alaska
Natives, were opposed to the death penalty - it was
discriminatory. He then indicated that discrimination is still
a problem. Referring to the case in which an 11-year-old child
shot his father and father's girlfriend, Mr. McKinley questioned
whether that child would be executed [under HB 9]. The death
penalty was abolished in Alaska because it was discriminatory,
he reiterated, and relayed that he'd spoken to a judge about the
inordinately longer sentences that those who are not white
receive, and the judge indicated that work is being done to
address that issue.
MR. McKINLEY, mentioning that he is a retired auditor, observed
that information in members' packets indicates that the cost
associated with sentencing a person to death will be greater
than the cost of incarcerating that person for 99 years - which
he characterized as more of a punishment. In conclusion, he
indicated that the ANB Grand Camp is against capital punishment
and has submitted resolutions to that effect, and expressed his
hope that legislators will make the right the decision and not
allow the death penalty to become law.
[HB 9, Version E, was held over.]
4:14:40 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB9 Applicable Court Rules.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Applicable Statutes.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 HJUD Doc. Index.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 CS version E.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Back up.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Letters of Support.Opposition.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Fiscal CTS Appellate.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Fiscal Note-DPS-02-18-09.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Fiscal Trial Courts.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Letters of Support.Opposition 2.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Letters of Support.Opposition 3.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Letters of Support.Opposition 4.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Sectional version E.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 version R.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9-Fiscal DOA-OPA-2-20-09.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9-Fiscal DOA-PDA-(page 2)-2-20-09.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9-Fiscal DOA-PDA-2-20-09.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9-Fiscal LAW-CRIM-2-20-09.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9CS Fiscal Note-DHSS-02-19-09.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| PresumptionofInnocence.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Support.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Support2.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Support1.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Support3.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Support4.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Support5.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Support6.pdf |
HJUD 2/25/2009 1:00:00 PM |