Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
02/26/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB331 | |
| HB52 | |
| HB323 | |
| HB138 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 323 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 331 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 52 - POST-TRIAL JUROR COUNSELING
1:25:04 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 52, "An Act authorizing psychological counseling
for jurors serving in criminal trials who are traumatized by
graphic evidence or testimony."
1:25:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 52 was engendered by the experiences of a
constituent who'd sat on the jury in the Rachelle Waterman
murder trial, a particularly difficult case; her constituent had
suggested that it might be a good idea for the State to provide
psychological counseling to jurors who hear such cases in order
to alleviate the trauma they experience when hearing testimony
and evidence about particularly heinous crimes. In conclusion,
she said she would appreciate the committee's support of HB 52.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:27 p.m. to 1:31 p.m.
1:31:56 PM
HANNA McCARTY, Staff, Representative Beth Kerttula, Alaska State
Legislature, explained on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Kerttula, that HB 52's proposed AS 12.45.018(a) provides that a
trial judge may offer not more than 10 hours of post-trial
psychological counseling without charge to a juror who serves on
a trial involving extraordinarily graphic, gruesome, or
emotional evidence or testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, noting that he supports the concept of
the bill, questioned whether the term, "extraordinarily" as used
in the bill is already defined in statute.
MS. McCARTY relayed that she would have to research that point.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA opined that it is necessary to include
that term because there could be a lot of other types of trials
that involve graphic, gruesome, or emotional evidence or
testimony. House Bill 52 is intended to apply to extremely
graphic, extremely gruesome, or extremely emotional
evidence/testimony. She surmised that as used in the bill, the
term, "extraordinarily" would be interpreted as having the
normal dictionary definition.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON questioned who would determine whether
testimony or evidence is extraordinarily graphic, gruesome, or
emotional.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that it would be the trial
judge who would make that determination.
MS. McCARTY went on to explain that HB 52's proposed AS
12.45.018(b) specifies which crimes the trials for which could
warrant post-trial psychological counseling for jurors. Those
crimes include: murder under AS 11.41.100 and AS 11.41.110,
manslaughter under AS 11.41.120, criminally negligent homicide
under AS 11.41.130, felonious assault under AS 11.41.200-220,
and a sexual offense under AS 11.41.410-460. She also explained
that HB 52's proposed AS 12.45.018(c)(1) states that the
counseling must occur not later than 180 days after the jury is
dismissed; and that HB 52's proposed AS 12.45.018(b)(2)-(3)
states that the counseling may be provided by the court system,
by a state agency, or by contract, and that it may be either
individual or group counseling.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, on the issue of the definition of the
term, "extraordinarily", predicted that the court would
determine on a case-by-case basis whether a particular trial
warranted post-trial psychological counseling.
1:39:20 PM
MINDY LOBAUGH remarked that HB 52 represents a bridge, a bridge
that she and many other jurors did not have at the end of a
trial. She went on to say:
You arrive at the court, given detailed instructions
of what is expected of you as a juror and how the
process of the trial will work. What the court system
does not do is transition jurors out of the process
after a trial. It is not uncommon to have major
criminal trials run for many days. As you know, I
served on the Rachelle Waterman trial four years ago,
and it lasted approximately ... 10 days. For me, I
arrived open and ready to do my civic duty as a juror,
and by the end of the trial, I left there as a victim,
feeling closed, confused, and very traumatized by the
burden of knowledge I now carried.
For 10 days, prosecutors went into great detail to
help the jurors relive the events of an unsuspecting
mother getting abducted from her home, tortured, and
finally murdered. It was our duty to determine if the
defendant, her daughter, was guilty of masterminding
this tragedy against a woman who was a pillar in her
community. I am here to tell you the media does not
even come close to covering the depth of this trial.
As a juror, we had access to piles of e-mails that
detailed out various ways these men planned to kill
the mother; the physical evidence; the photographs;
and, of course, the hours of testimony that we sat
through.
For quite some time during and following that trial,
eating, for me, was a near impossibility because of
how sickened I was from this experience. To my
friends and family, I became a stranger, and each
night I prayed myself to sleep. One of my fellow
jury-mates was pregnant with her second child - she
had shared the ultrasound pictures with us early on;
by the end of the trial, she lost her baby and had to
be excused. When this trial ended with a hung jury, I
turned to the presiding judge and I asked if the
courts offer some kind of counseling or process to
help jurors deal with this traumatizing information.
The answer was no.
For me, it was like having a door slammed in my face,
and then you turn around and you find there's no
bridge to help me return to the life that I had before
this trial, ... a life that did not hold this kind of
dark knowledge. It was at this point I felt the court
had failed me as a juror doing my civic duty. Please
help me to build the bridge by supporting HB 52 -
post-trial jury counseling. I may not have found
closure with [respect] ... to this trial, but maybe
you can bridge that for the jurors doing their civic
duties in the future, by passing HB 52.
1:43:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM noted that while that trial was going
on, it even affected many of the people who worked in the
Capitol, right across the street from the courthouse, and
surmised that the media accounts of that trial couldn't have
accurately portrayed what the jurors must have been going
through.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that he has sat on several
coroner's juries - once having had to declare a friend of his
dead - and that sitting on such juries can also be traumatizing.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 52.
1:45:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 52 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for the purpose of demonstrating a
roll call vote.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Herron,
Lynn, Gruenberg, and Ramras voted in favor of reporting HB 52
from committee. No one voted against it. Therefore, HB 52 was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote
of 5-0.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 hearing request HB 138.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 02 HB138 Sponsor Statement 2.5.10.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 03 HB138 version S.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 04 HB138 Bill CS v. T.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 05 explanation of changes from original HB 138.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 06 HB138-LAW-CRIM-02-12-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 07 HB138 DOC FN.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 08 HB138 Support.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| 09 AS 11 61 140.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 01 HB323 HJUD Hearing request.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 02 HB323 Bill v. A.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 03 HB323 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 04 HB323-ACS-02-03-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 05 HB323-AJC-AJC-2-8-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| 01 HB52 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| 02 HB52 Bill v. A.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| 03 HB52-CT-FN.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| 04 HB52 Support.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |