04/08/2009 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY

HJR 30 - DEATH PENALTY FOR JOSHUA WADE                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:19:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  JOINT RESOLUTION  NO.  30,  Relating to  the  case of  the                                                               
United  States  v. Wade  and  to  the  decision of  the  Attorney                                                               
General of the United States with respect to that case.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:20:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BILL  STOLTZE, Alaska State  Legislature, sponsor,                                                               
relayed that HJR 30 has a  very narrow focus on a specific issue,                                                               
that  of  asking  the  federal  government  to  consider  whether                                                               
capital punishment should  be a sentencing option in  the case of                                                               
Joshua Wade.   He noted that the language on  page 2 lines 13-22,                                                               
read:                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     WHEREAS  the United  States Department  of Justice  has                                                                  
     created a  capital case review procedure  to assist the                                                                    
     United States  Attorney General in making  decisions on                                                                    
     whether to seek the death penalty; and                                                                                     
     WHEREAS  the  capital  case review  procedure  requires                                                                  
     each United  States Attorney to  submit for  review all                                                                    
     cases  involving a  pending charge  of  an offense  for                                                                    
     which  the  death  penalty   is  a  legally  authorized                                                                    
     sanction,  regardless of  whether  or  not that  United                                                                    
     States Attorney  recommends seeking the  death penalty;                                                                    
     and                                                                                                                        
     WHEREAS,  during  the  capital case  review,  a  review                                                                  
     committee makes  a recommendation to the  United States                                                                    
     Attorney  General  as  to  whether  the  death  penalty                                                                    
     should be sought in a case; and                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE noted  that the language on  page 2, lines                                                               
26-28 read:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     BE IT RESOLVED that  the Alaska State Legislature urges                                                                  
     the United States Attorney General  to consider all the                                                                    
     evidence and,  if justified by the  evidence, carefully                                                                    
     consider the  death penalty as a  sentencing option for                                                                    
     Joshua Wade.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STOLTZE  explained  that  under  current  federal                                                               
procedure,  the  issue  of whether  a  particular  case  warrants                                                               
consideration of  the death penalty  as a sentencing  option must                                                               
be determined before the trial starts,  and that HJR 30 is merely                                                               
a statement that the legislature  wants to have the death penalty                                                               
be considered  in this  situation.   In conclusion,  he mentioned                                                               
that  he has  not yet  spoken  with the  victims' families  about                                                               
HJR 30.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG   expressed  concern   about   getting                                                               
involved in ongoing litigation in  a criminal case, in that doing                                                               
so  would be  setting  a precedent  such  that the  legislature's                                                               
involvement  in a  variety of  cases  would be  requested in  the                                                               
future.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:27:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SUSAN C. ORLANSKY,  Attorney at Law, Feldman  Orlansky & Sanders,                                                               
asked  the committee  to vote  against  HJR 30,  adding that  her                                                               
position  on the  resolution  is  not based  on  whether the  U.S                                                               
attorneys prosecuting Joshua  Wade should or should  not seek the                                                               
death penalty,  but rather  on a separation  of powers  issue and                                                               
division of  responsibility.  She  surmised that  the legislature                                                               
would  not  appreciate the  U.S.  Attorney's  Office telling  the                                                               
legislature how to  do its job, even if such  advice were to come                                                               
in  the form  of a  mild resolution.   Similarly,  she said,  she                                                               
thinks  it is  not appropriate  for  the legislature  to seek  to                                                               
influence the handling  of a particular criminal case.   The U.S.                                                               
Attorney's   Office  already   has  standards,   guidelines,  and                                                               
procedures  for determining  when to  treat a  case as  a capital                                                               
case; such  a determination influences  the office's  budget, its                                                               
allocation   of  manpower,   may  require   a  decision   to  not                                                               
investigate  or   prosecute  someone   else,  and   reflects  its                                                               
obligation to  have consistent, nationwide standards  so that the                                                               
government  can't  be accused  of  behaving  in an  arbitrary  or                                                               
unfair  fashion  when  deciding  to  ask  for  the  most  extreme                                                               
penalty.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  ORLANSKY  pointed  out  that   those  outside  of  the  U.S.                                                               
Attorney's Office don't  have all the facts that  weigh into such                                                               
decision  making, and  so for  the legislature  to start  telling                                                               
prosecutors what to consider or  how to exercise their discretion                                                               
in a particular case appears to her  to set a bad precedent.  She                                                               
surmised that everyone  has recently seen how  high profile cases                                                               
can be mishandled,  especially when decisions are  rushed or when                                                               
prosecutors  are   perhaps  influenced   by  a  desire   to  make                                                               
headlines.  Winning a conviction  or a particular penalty doesn't                                                               
accomplish anything  if the process is  flawed and has to  be set                                                               
aside.  If  the goal is to see Joshua  Wade prosecuted fairly and                                                               
effectively and be punished appropriately  if convicted, then the                                                               
best approach would  be to let the prosecutors do  their job in a                                                               
professional manner  uninfluenced by public pressures.   She said                                                               
she is  not aware  of the legislature  having previously  taken a                                                               
public  position  on  how federal  or  state  prosecutors  should                                                               
handle a  particular case,  and she  thinks, therefore,  that the                                                               
legislature's not  having done so  reflects a wise  deference and                                                               
appropriate  perspective  on  the different  roles  of  different                                                               
branches of government.   In conclusion, she  urged the committee                                                               
to follow that same course and vote against HJR 30.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:30:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RICH CURTNER  said he would  be speaking against HJR  30, opining                                                               
that  it  sets  bad  public policy  by  attempting  to  influence                                                               
ongoing  litigation and  the discretion  of  the [U.S.  Attorney]                                                               
The  U.S. Department  of Justice  (DOJ) has  strict protocol  for                                                               
handling  [death penalty  cases], and  HJR  30 could  be seen  as                                                               
possibly having influenced the  U.S. Attorney's Office decisions.                                                               
House  Joint  Resolution  30  sends  some  bad  messages  to  the                                                               
citizens of  Alaska:  one,  it disregards  the verdict of  the 12                                                               
Alaskan jurors who  initially found Mr. Wade not  guilty; two, it                                                               
makes  an assumption  about the  State's criminal  justice system                                                               
and  the presumption  of innocence,  since Mr.  Wade has  not yet                                                               
been  convicted, and  so the  resolution  could be  viewed as  an                                                               
attempt to presume guilt and  influence the system; and three, it                                                               
could potentially result  in a change of venue  due to additional                                                               
pretrial publicity.   In conclusion,  he pointed out that  HJR 30                                                               
would be  speaking to the  same people that prosecuted  then U.S.                                                               
Senator  Ted Stevens,  and opined  that caution  should be  taken                                                               
whenever the  legislature proposes  any resolution that  could be                                                               
viewed as an attempt to  influence the DOJ's treatment of ongoing                                                               
litigation.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:33:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SUE  JOHNSON, Coordinator,  Alaskans  Against  the Death  Penalty                                                               
(AADP),  said  that HJR  30  appears  to  involve one  branch  of                                                               
government  - the  legislative branch  - attempting  to influence                                                               
another branch of government -  the judicial branch.  The federal                                                               
government already has a thoughtful  process in place that allows                                                               
a criminal  case to be elevated  to the level of  a death penalty                                                               
case.   She  said  she thinks  that it  would  therefore be  very                                                               
inappropriate  for the  legislature  to get  involved  in such  a                                                               
decision or to  even be perceived as getting involved.   She also                                                               
pointed out that  many family members of murder  victims are very                                                               
opposed to executing those who have killed their loved ones.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  said she  would be  voting against  HJR 30                                                               
because  she  feels it  would  be  setting  a bad  precedent  for                                                               
legislators to be weighing in on criminal cases.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS, having  previously  ascertained that  no one  else                                                               
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 30.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:35:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report  HJR 30 out of committee                                                               
with  individual  recommendations  and  the  accompanying  fiscal                                                               
notes.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was  taken.  Representatives Dahlstrom, Coghill,                                                               
Gatto,  and  Ramras voted  in  favor  of  reporting HJR  30  from                                                               
committee.   Representatives  Lynn, Gruenberg,  and Holmes  voted                                                               
against  it.   Therefore,  HJR  30 was  reported  from the  House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.