Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
02/08/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR8 | |
| HB316 | |
| HB298 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 298 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 316 - POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING; EVIDENCE
[CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 316, "An Act relating to post-conviction DNA
testing, to the preservation of certain evidence, and to the DNA
identification registration system; relating to post-conviction
relief procedures; relating to representation by the public
defender; amending Rule 35.1, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."]
1:18:02 PM
RICHARD SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General, Central Office,
Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), on behalf of the
administration, explained that HB 316 does three things to
address Alaska's problem of domestic violence (DV) and sexual
assault. First, it would create a system for the retention of
evidence in certain types of cases, such as homicide cases and
sexual assault cases, and the retention of that evidence would
be for specific periods of time, both prior to someone being
charged with an offense [and after a person is convicted]. For
cold cases, evidence should be retained for substantially longer
than it is now, and so HB 316 would set some retention standards
for serious cases; currently, law enforcement agencies can throw
out evidence whenever they want because there are no standards
with regard to how long evidence must be retained. He mentioned
a situation wherein when the Juneau Police Department recently
moved to a new building, [the paperwork for] a case involving
the death of a seven-year-old in the 1960s was found behind a
filing cabinet, and although he believed that he could have
prosecuted that case, there was no longer any evidence available
- it had been discarded.
MR. SVOBODNY relayed that second, HB 316's evidence retention
requirements would address post-conviction relief cases wherein
those convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, after all their
appeals have been exhausted, then seek to come back to court in
order to try to convince the court that there is some other
reason why their conviction should be set aside. The proposed
changes affecting post-conviction relief procedures are
necessary because of the advent of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
analyses that assist the criminal justice system in making sure
that the right person is convicted; whether DNA analyses show
that the right person was convicted or that the wrong person was
convicted and therefore the right person still needs to be
sought out, the proposed changes will affect cases involving
homicide, DV, and sexual assault. Third, HB 316 would create a
task force to address standards for evidence collection for all
law enforcement agencies so as to keep them up to date on new
technology/analyses.
1:22:14 PM
MR. SVOBODNY noted that in the U.S. Supreme Court case,
[District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v.
Osborne], the media inaccurately stated that Alaska law doesn't
address post-conviction DNA testing; Alaska law does do so, but
it's via case law rather than via statute. It is generally the
DOL's belief that it is better that laws be made by the
legislature rather than by the courts, because when done by the
courts, it's done on a case-by-case basis only and so could take
many cases over the course of decades to fully develop a
particular area of law, whereas when the legislature makes laws,
it does so as a package, dealing will all the public policy
issues at one time. In Osborne, the U.S. Supreme Court
determined that laws setting the standards for how cases are
dealt with after conviction are better left to the individual
states to develop, and HB 316 does just that for Alaska. He
mentioned that HB 316 has received a lot input from the DOL, law
enforcement agencies, the Public Defender Agency (PDA), and
other interested parties.
MR. SVOBODNY, in response to questions, said that the DOL's
fiscal note is pretty accurate and reflects that post-
conviction-relief cases are occurring now; that in terms of
testing DNA samples, HB 316 would be limited to situations
involving crimes against people; that the estimates of $4,000
and $2,000 for fiscal year 2011 (FY 11) and FY 12, respectively,
address costs associated with the aforementioned proposed task
force; that in terms of evidence retention, the bill won't cost
law enforcement agencies any more than the existing piecemeal
approach; that any evidence retention constitutes somewhat of an
unfunded mandate currently borne by law enforcement agencies;
that the bill outlines timeframes for the retention of evidence;
that the proposed task force would establish good evidence-
gathering standards for all law enforcement officers; and that
although currently a member of the defense bar is not included
in the list of those who shall sit on the proposed task force,
the establishment of standards for evidence storage won't
necessarily require input from the defense bar.
[HB 316 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|