Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
04/16/2014 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR23 | |
| SCR2 | |
| SB170 | |
| SB173 | |
| HB45 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 173 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 170-AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PROSTITUTION
1:44:29 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 170, "An Act relating to a defense to the crime
of prostitution for victims of sex trafficking."
SENATOR BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, said the
discussion on SB 170 at the last hearing was not thorough,
because the committee was rushed. Currently, 23 states, and
others in progress, offer an affirmative defense against
prostitution charges [for victims of sex trafficking]. When she
spoke with law enforcement, including the FBI [Federal Bureau of
Investigation] and police officers, she found them to be very
enthusiastic about this tool for going after traffickers. Those
who are opposed are opposed because the legislation does not go
far enough, she said. There are some people who want to
decriminalize prostitution and vacate previous convictions, she
noted, and there are others who want to vacate convictions of
trafficking victims and offer immunity for other offenses
(sometimes the victims are forced to sell or use drugs, for
example). She stated that all of those proposals are worthy,
but SB 170 "is not going there." The heart of the bill is to
not re-victimize sex traffic victims by prosecuting them for
prostitution, and the other is to help law enforcement go after
the traffickers, she said.
1:46:51 PM
CHAIR KELLER noted that there were two private defense attorneys
and a public defender on line.
STEVE HANDY, Staff to Senator Berta Gardner, Alaska State
Legislature, noted that the main concern voiced at the last
hearing was how the affirmative defense would hurt the victim by
subjected him or her to intense scrutiny from the prosecution.
He explained that the affirmative defense "is just that; it ends
right there." The defense must be declared pretrial, and in the
trial it is given to the jury, he stated. If the jury believes
by a preponderance of the evidence (the lowest form of evidence)
that the victim was induced or caused to engage in the act, then
the victim is excused at that point. There is no obligation for
prosecution or negotiation-"that is it."
CHAIR KELLER opened public testimony.
1:48:47 PM
SCOTT DATTAN, Defense Attorney, said he does a lot of federal
criminal defense work and some state defense work. After
discussing the bill with Mr. Handy, he concluded that the
legislation was an appropriate thing to do. The affirmative
defense should be offered to young women who are pressed into
this type of occupation and into illegal conduct, he opined. He
said he sees no negative aspect to a defendant, who can choose
not to offer the defense. It would, however, be statutorily
available if a defendant and her attorney chose to avail
themselves of it.
1:50:59 PM
WALLY TETLOW, Partner, Tetlow Christie, LLC, said he has
practiced criminal defense in Alaska state courts for over 20
years. He opined that SB 170 is important, and it provides an
opportunity for an individual charged with prostitution to prove
to a jury that he or she was induced to do so by sex
traffickers. He stated that the bill does not provide a free
pass to engage in prostitution, but it provides an affirmative
defense. Regarding the concern of the bill causing victims to
make themselves targets of law enforcement and be charged for
prostitution, "in actuality, the affirmative defense will not do
that-it will have the opposite effect." With law enforcement's
support of SB 170, "the last thing that the Department of Law or
law enforcement would want" is for the victims to come forward
to reveal information about sex traffickers and then law
enforcement turns around and punishes those individuals by
charging them with offenses. "I don't see that occurring," he
stated.
1:53:15 PM
MR. TETLOW continued:
The way the affirmative defense works in the real
world is that at trial the defense must produce some
evidence in support of the defense in order to even
have the jury decide whether the defense applies. So,
the first thing that happens in court is that the
defense is required to put on some evidence to justify
the jury instruction that would go to the jury and
allow the jury to consider the issue. If there is no
evidence offered in support of the affirmative
defense, the jury never gets the issue, he explained,
so that is the first hurdle. The second hurdle is
that the jury decides, by a preponderance of the
evidence, whether or not the defense applies, and it
is the defendant's burden to prove the defense, but
the jury's decision. Ultimately the affirmative
defense not only plays out at trial, but, in many
cases, it will play out before trial, thereby
lessening the anxiety and pressure and stress on the
victim of sex trafficking.
1:54:37 PM
MR. TETLOW noted that normally in criminal cases, long before a
case goes to trial, there is a negotiation phase, and, at that
time, defense attorneys offer information to the prosecutor in
an effort to dismiss charges. Such negotiations are often
successful in weeding out cases that should not go to trial, he
explained. The hope would be, he said, that in most cases with
prostitutes who are victims of sex traffickers, the prosecution
will get that information and determine that it is valid and
elect to dismiss the charges.
1:55:07 PM
MR. TETLOW said he was told there were concerns of adding stress
to the victims if they have to testify against the traffickers
and be subject to cross-examination. Simply by offering
evidence at trial or in the negotiation phase, the victims do
not automatically make themselves a witness against the
traffickers. He said victims can elect not to cooperate, and
they may not always be the best witnesses for the prosecutors or
investigators. Law enforcement will want to amass more evidence
than just the victims' statements, but their information may
allow law enforcement to pursue other avenues of evidence that
they might not have been otherwise aware of.
CHAIR KELLER asked if a victim chooses not to become a witness,
will the affirmative defense still be available.
1:58:12 PM
MR. TETLOW said that in the victim's prostitution trial there
are a number of ways for the victim to present the affirmative
defense. One way, he said, is for the victim to testify on his
or her own behalf, but it is not required. There are other ways
of establishing the affirmative defense without having the
victim testify, he explained. However, he said, his previous
comments were more directed at the concern that not only would
the victim have to, perhaps, testify in his or her own trial,
but he or she would be the subject of a subpoena by prosecutors
to testify in other trials [of the traffickers].
2:00:25 PM
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER thanked the sponsor for the legislation,
and said that not only is it good for all victims across the
state, but it is good "particularly [for] Alaska Natives, who
come from rural areas and they end up in places where they have
little or no support group and are easily influenced."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN concurred with Representative Foster, and he
moved to report SB 170 out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
CHAIR KELLER noted no objection, and SB 170 moved out of the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:01:36 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 45 Leg. Legal Opinion.pdf |
HJUD 4/16/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| SJR 23 ACPE Resolution of Support.pdf |
HJUD 4/16/2014 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Support Letter~University of Alaska.pdf |
HJUD 4/16/2014 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Witness List HJUD.pdf |
HJUD 4/16/2014 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| HCCSSB 173 ver. Y Draft.pdf |
HJUD 4/16/2014 1:00:00 PM |
SB 173 |
| HCSCSSB 173 ver. Y Leg. Legal Memo.pdf |
HJUD 4/16/2014 1:00:00 PM |
SB 173 |