SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 370(JUD) "An Act relating to the provision of legal services at public expense." Representative Terry Martin was invited to join the committee and testified on behalf of the bill. The bill was initiated last fall that indicated a problem with individuals who were financially able to secure private counsel making use of counsel at public expense. There were some ambiguities as to when and at what time public counsel could defend an individual. This legislation was suggested to clear up this confusion. A person would be classified as indigent through the Court System rather than through the Public Defender Agency and it will be done at the first Court appearance. He referred to the zero fiscal note and said outside the public defender's office everyone seemed happy with the bill. Daniella Loper was invited to join the committee. She explained the difference between the two (JUD) versions. This regarded the definition of "indigency" and said it was removed so it would not cost the Court System a fiscal note. Co-chairman Halford said the Court System was working on this bill also. Senator Rieger referred to page 2, line 4. Arthur Snowden, Alaska Court System was invited to join the committee. He said in the House (JUD) version the indigency determination would have to be made on the record at the time of arraignment. The problem arose due to the fact there are approximately 22,000 arraignments in Anchorage and 9,000 arraignments in Fairbanks, and four or five new judges would have been needed to take care of arraignments. A committee has been created to come up with a tighter indigency definition. Senator Frank asked if the committee was also looking at an individual risking jail time had a right to court appointed attorney if they were indigent. Mr. Snowden said yes because this was a constitutional right. Under a federal ruling the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled than any indigent defendant facing imprisonment, loss of a valuable license or heavy enough fine to indicate criminality has a right to counsel. Senator Frank asked if a defendant facing three days in jail was also covered under this ruling and Mr. Snowden said it did not matter what case the U.S. Supreme Court had looked at because this was a blanket ruling. Ms. Loper referred to the definition of a serious crime and said this falls under representation by a public defender. There was further discussion between members regarding retention of a public defender. (tape switch to side 2) Mr. Snowden said this bill would stop pre-appointment of the public defender as now an individual would have to wait for Court appointment. The Court System has no problem with this bill. Senator Frank moved SCS CSHB 370(JUD) and it was reported out with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes for Department of Administration/OPA; Department of Administration/PDA and the Alaska Court System.