Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/22/1997 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 22, 1997
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jeannette James
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: Alaska State Department of Law
OVERVIEW: Alaska State Court System
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
BRUCE BOTELHO, Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Telephone: (907)465-3600
CYNTHIA HORA, Deputy Attorney General
Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals
Department of Law
310 K Street, Suite 308
Anchorage, AK 99501-2064
Telephone: (907)269-6250
CHARLES, "Chris", CHRISTENSEN, Staff Counsel
Alaska Court System
820 4th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907)264-8228
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-1, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order by
Chairman Joe Green at 1:00 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Vice-Chair Con Bunde, Representative Brian Porter,
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Representative Eric Croft,
Representative Ethan Berkowitz and Chairman Joe Green.
Representative Jeannette James was excused.
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN provided organizational guidelines and committee
procedures which should be adhered to by committee members for
meeting purposes.
Number 325
OVERVIEW OF THE ALASKA STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAW:
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Bruce Botelho, Attorney General,
Department of Law, provide an overview of the responsibilities and
obligations of the Department of Law.
BRUCE BOTELHO, Attorney General, Department of Law, introduced
major management staff of the department. Cynthia Hora had been
appointed Assistant Attorney General for the criminal division.
Ms. Hora previously served for six years as head of the
department's Special Prosecution and Appeals Division. Barbara
Ritchie serves as the deputy attorney general for the civil
division and Fred Fisher serves as the new director for the
Administrative Services Division. Also in attendance from the
Department of Law were Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General,
who serves as the department's lead legislative liaison
on criminal matters and Chrystal Smith, Legal Administrator and
serves as the primary legislative liaison relating to civil
division matters. Joan Kasson primarily tracks the department's
oil and gas activities. Her primary role had been monitoring
expenditures by outside counsel and cost control mechanisms the
department felt should be in place because of the amounts of money
the department necessarily expends.
Number 478
ATTORNEY GENERAL BRUCE BOTELHO advised members the department was
organized in three divisions; Administrative Services Division,
Civil Division and the Criminal Division. He pointed out that the
criminal division was responsible for the prosecution of criminal
cases and provides legal services for the Department of Public
Safety and the Department of Corrections.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO explained that the department had
developed a practice in the criminal division of having all appeals
coming from the various district attorneys offices around the state
managed in one central location with people who specialize in
appellate practice.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that the department had
reorganized this year by moving two units relating to white collar
and environmental issues, previously within the civil division,
into the Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals (OSPA), where
they would be subject to the same kind of screening procedures that
other criminal cases require. That arrangement was accepted by the
federal government. Another change that had taken place within the
department's organizational chart from last year was the funding of
a full-time district attorney in Dillingham, Alaska which had
proven quite successful.
Number 670
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO explained that the department's civil
divisions were located primarily in Anchorage and Juneau, with a
third office located in Fairbanks, Alaska. The Human Services
Division was responsible for children's proceedings, services to
the Department of Labor and Education and also the unit responsible
for prosecuting juvenile delinquency cases. Attorney General
Botelho advised members that had been area the department had been
concerned about because of under-staffing and were considering
shifting that responsibility to the criminal division. He
expressed the department's eagerness in working with the committee
on youth and justice legislation which would impact that section
and how the state dealt with youth crime.
Number 760
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that the Environmental Law
Section dealt with environmental enforcement and defense issues, as
well as monitoring the Exxon-Valdez litigation and providing
support to the Exxon-Valdez Trustee Council.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO noted that the Oil, Gas and Mining Section
dealt with taxes, royalties and the statehood compact. He
referenced the Dinkum Sands Case, United States v. State of Alaska,
which was scheduled to be argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court
on February 24, 1997. Currently, $1.4 billion is held in the U.S.
Treasury pending the outcome of that case. A special master, who
was appointed approximately 17 years ago, had rendered his opinion
last year and most of those funds, based on his report to the
Supreme Court, would flow to the U.S. Treasury and not to the state
of Alaska. Attorney General Botelho noted that under that decision
it was recognized that the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR),
would belong to the state of Alaska, not the federal government.
Number 880
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that the Collections and
Support Section was fairly new to the department. He explained the
reason for that was to consolidate the department's expertise in
two areas; child support enforcement and collection of debts, fines
and judgments owed the state. Attorney General Botelho estimated
that the department had generated approximately $2.3 million in
recovery of fines that the court system had been otherwise unable
to collect.
Number 935
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO went on to state that the Governmental
Affairs Section provided legal services to the Department of
Administration, the Governor and Lt. Governor. The Legislation and
Regulations Section screens all the Governor's legislation and also
reviews all regulations. Attorney General Botelho advised members
that there was a statute which requires the regulations attorney to
approve all regulations prior to becoming final. He noted that
that had been an area of concern for the Department of Law. Over
the past two years the department had had two management reviews,
conducted at their request, by the Conference of Western Attorneys
General. Attorney General Botelho pointed out that one of the
major frustrations they found among the department's client
agencies, as well as legislators, was the delay in the department's
ability to move regulations through the process. He noted that
they had had an ongoing multi-agency task force that was
formulating recommendations for the department to re-think how the
department reviews regulations. One of the outcomes of that task
force involved a legislative proposal to attempt to streamline
advertising and notice requirements.
Number 980
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO continued noting that the Fair Business
Practices Section dealt with regulatory policing of the public
utilities commission and occupational licensing. He noted that
there were numerous boards where disciplinary action had been
required. Also, the department has had the Consumer Protection
Section included in the Fair Business Practices Section, although
it was funded as a separate subunit.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that the Natural Resources
Section had three dramatic responsibilities which consisted of land
and fish and game management issues statewide.
The Statehood Defense Unit, which was created through the budget
process the previous legislative session, dealt with how the
department deals with RS-2477, navigability and endangered species,
and also the entire range of issues that pertain to Native
sovereignty and other Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (ANILCA), types of challenges. Attorney General Botelho noted
that there was one other statehood defense issue which was the
Statehood Compact case. He advised members that the department had
completed its briefing on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals;
however, the federal government had recently requested an extension
of time to file their brief.
Number 1105
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO informed members that the mental health
lands case was scheduled to be argued in front of the supreme court
in Anchorage on February 10, 1997. It was his hope that case would
be brought to a successful conclusion, although the department
anticipated that the state would see further attempt to have the
case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court because of federal law issues
involved.
Number 1150
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO conveyed some of the management
improvements which the department had undertaken. He noted that
one of the concerns of Legislative Audit in the past was the
department's time-keeping methodology. For the past ten months,
the department had been utilizing a universal time-keeping system
for all civil division lawyers which would enable the department to
report to the legislature exactly how the lawyers were spending
their time and the state's money. Attorney General Botelho noted
that that had also allowed the department to set uniform rates on
how much is charged state agencies for attorney services.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO referenced the department's monthly and
periodic reports relating to significant litigation, and hoped
those were helpful to members of the legislature. He advised
members that the department had been emphasizing the importance of
the Department of Law being one department; not as a criminal
division and a civil division. Attorney General Botelho explained
that management had been focusing on cross training opportunities,
joint management and trying to create a culture of professionalism
that allows a person to identify himself or herself as a state
lawyer rather than a criminal division employee or civil division
employee.
Number 1300
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO addressed some of the department's most
important policy issues they were currently facing. With respect
to the Venetie case, Attorney General Botelho advised members that
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused the state's request for
rehearing. Currently, the department was preparing to take a
petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, adding that the
department had 90 days from the actual decision to do so. Attorney
General Botelho stated that in the mean time, they had negotiated
with the plaintiffs and the Native American Rights Fund, a stay of
the 9th Circuit decision, pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme
Court. He explained that the 9th Circuit was not bound by that
stipulation, that the department would have to receive permission
by the court to actually have the order entered.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that over the last ten
days, the department had been actively reviewing resumes of law
firms and individual counsel who specialize in U.S. Supreme Court
practice in Washington, D.C. One law firm, and individual in
particular, had been considered and Governor Knowles was expected
to meet with the leadership that afternoon to discuss that law
firm. Attorney General Botelho explained that the law firm chosen
would assist the department in doing the extra legal work of
attempting to push the federal government in a particular
direction, and not to get them to actively oppose the state's
efforts. That outside counsel would also focus on preparing the
state's petition for review.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO felt it was important for the committee to
know that there were between 7,000 and 7,500 requests made to the
court each year for petitions, and in the past several years had
only granted between 90 and 100. The department's goal, and what
was necessary to achieve, was to make the case so persuasive,
because of its importance and impact, that it would be worth one of
the 90 cases the court would consider.
Number 1445
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members, with respect to tidelands
issues and litigation, that the 11th Amendment states that a
federal court does not have jurisdiction to hear a case where a
state had not given consent to be sued. He went on to say that a
state was only permitted to waive that suit if there had been an
Act by the legislature that would provide an unequivocal indication
that such waiver had taken place. There had been two cases in the
U.S. District Court in Anchorage where the court had thrown out a
case because the state was an indispensable party but could not be
joined because there was no finding of an express waiver. Attorney
General Botelho explained that he did not, on his own, have
authority to waive the state's protection against suit. This was
particularly important at the present time in the case involving
Peratrovich [Ph] v. United States, which was a fish and game issue
dealing with the ANILCA. Attorney General Botelho advised members
that the state of Alaska claimed that the federal government did
not have jurisdiction or title to waters in Southeast Alaska; those
are waters of the state and not the federal government. He
explained that the only way the state could get into the suit was
to be a defendant.
Number 1585
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that as a consequence of
that situation, the department would be asking the committee to
consider legislation that would grant authority, in discrete cases,
for the attorney general to waive sovereign immunity for the
purpose of protecting the state's interests in a better way.
Number 1620
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if a waiver were granted, through
resolution by the legislature, if it would affect only the three
respective cases. Attorney General Botelho did not know whether a
resolution would be the appropriate tool, or if it would actually
require a formal act in the form of legislation. He felt that it
would require legislation. Attorney General Botelho advised
members that the department was specifically looking at a waiver
that dealt with submerged lands only.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO pointed out that the legislature had
recently changed Criminal Rule 16 to require reciprocal discovery.
He explained that the state has the burden to produce evidence to
the other side, and that burden would also apply to the defendant.
Attorney General Botelho advised members the matter had been
challenged several times and asked that Deputy Attorney General,
Cynthia Hora, update the committee on the status of that
litigation.
Number 1830
CYNTHIA HORA, Deputy Attorney General, Office of Special
Prosecutions and Appeals, Department of Law, advised members that
the division waited for a serious felony case in which to litigate
the issue. The case chosen was State of Alaska v. David
Summerville [Ph], who had been charged with a number of counts of
sexual assault in Fairbanks, Alaska. In accordance with Criminal
Rule 16, the department provided discovery and then made the
request for discovery from the defense. The defense objected and
moved to quash the request by alleging that Criminal Rule 16 was
unconstitutional. The state then filed in opposition and Judge
Savell ruled that Criminal Rule 16 was unconstitutional under the
1974 Alaska Supreme Court decision, Scott v. State of Alaska.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA informed members they then filed a
Petition for Review with the Alaska Court of Appeals, asking them
to review the case. The court of appeals refused, noting that they
were bound by Scott v. State of Alaska, and would affirm the
criminal rule as unconstitutional. At that point, a petition for
hearing was filed in the Alaska Supreme Court asking for
discretionary review. That request was granted in late December
1996, with four members of the court voting to take the petition
and one member dissenting. Deputy Attorney General Hora advised
members that the brief, which could be up to 50 pages, was
currently being drafted by an attorney in the Office of Special
Prosecutions and Appeals. Deputy Attorney General Hora pointed out
that the Alaska Supreme Court had also asked the Public Defenders
Agency and Office of Public Advocacy to file amicus briefs.
Number 1930
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked who the dissenting judge was. Deputy
Attorney General Hora responded that it was Judge Rabinowitz.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what the gist of Scott v. State was.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA explained that requiring a criminal
defendant to release, or disclose the names of alibi witnesses and
their statements, violated the privilege against self incrimination
as set forth in the Alaska Constitution. She pointed out that the
department's argument to the Alaska Supreme Court was that the
privilege should be personal to the defendant, which was one issue
that had not been addressed in Scott v. State. The state was
asking that the court rule that disclosure of anything, other than
statements by the defendant, not be privileged because it was not
personal to the individual.
Number 1990
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members another major concern of
the department's criminal division involved two recent decisions
which dealt with the right to jury trial.
Number 2008
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA advised members that the first case
was State of Alaska v. District Court which involved the minor
consuming alcohol statute. The current statutory scheme provides
that 13- to 17-year-olds cited for minor consuming would involve an
administrative revocation of the minor's license, and a citation is
issued which brings the case into the court system. Deputy
Attorney General Hora advised members that the Alaska Supreme
Court, in the case Baker v. City of Fairbanks ruled that if a
person lost a valuable license in a court proceeding, the
individual would be entitled to a jury trial. Deputy Attorney
General Hora advised members that the state then filed an original
application asking the court of appeals to declare that jury trials
would not be required in those types of cases. She noted that the
court relied on Baker v. City of Fairbanks, and ruled that those
individuals would be entitled to a jury trial and court appointed
counsel.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA explained that there was language in
the decision that indicated that the courts would uphold the
administrative drivers license revocation and no jury trial would
be required in the administrative context. She advised members
that the statute provides that a court ordered revocation would run
concurrent with the administrative revocation and the department's
recommendation would be to remove the court ordered revocation and
maintain the administrative revocation of the minor's drivers
license.
Number 2106
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA continued pointing out that the second
and more troubling case was one that came out on December 27, 1997
called State of Alaska v. Dutch Harbor Seafoods. That case
involved a commercial fishing violation which the law terms as
violations. A first offense would be punishable by a $3,000 fine,
and a second offense would impose a fine in the amount of $6,000.
If the person was found to have committed the violation, the court
would order the forfeiture of the illegal catch.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA advised members that Dutch Harbor
Seafoods expressed the want for a jury trial because the value of
their illegal catch was $150,000. Under the Baker v. City of
Fairbanks case, Deputy Attorney General Hora explained that it
addressed fines indicative of criminality as being subject to jury
trials in criminal cases. The department approached the court of
appeals who denied the state's request for discretionary review.
The state then filed with the supreme court, who basically said
that the forfeiture of the illegal gain was essentially restitution
and a jury trial would not take place.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA informed members the department had
filed a petition for rehearing which stated, basically, that the
issue was neither criminal nor civil and a jury trial should not be
provided in those types of cases.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if those types of situations could be dealt
with in the small claims court. Deputy Attorney General Hora's
response was that that would require a constitutional amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referenced the Venetie case and asked if the
state lost at the supreme court level if there would be a federal
statutory fix available.
Number 2336
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO felt that would become the arena for
debate as to whether there would be some acceptable middle ground
to resolve the issue. It was his sense that the delegation was
clearly committed to finding a solution in the event that the
supreme court chose not to take the case, in the first place, or to
rule against the state. He noted that one of the big issues of
debate was timing in terms of when it would be appropriate for
Congress to begin working on the issue. The state was concerned
that if it happened too soon and the supreme court was aware there
was Congressional activity, that they would be less inclined to
accept the state's petition in the first place. Attorney General
Botelho felt that Congress was the forum they would immediately
switch to, at the point, if the supreme court decided not to take
the case; however, should the court decide to take the case, there
could also be some reason to begin the Congressional process
anyway.
VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE referenced the Venetie case and asked what
types of resources and funds the department anticipated spending on
that case.
Number 2450
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO anticipated that the first stage would
range between $100,000 and $150,000 in terms of outside counsel.
That figure did not include work being done in-house.
VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked that the attorney general speak to the
recently filed tobacco industry bill.
TAPE 97-1, SIDE B
Number 000
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that tobacco industry
companies were challenging the state's authority to increase taxes
on tobacco and tobacco products. He explained that the next step
the state would take would be to file an answer or a motion to
dismiss. Both of those options were open to the state and the
department was consulting with other states, tactically, because
the issues raised in the case were issues being raised in several
others. Attorney General Botelho advised members that Alaska was
one of the only states where the litigation was occurring in
federal court, rather than state courts. He pointed out that the
concern of Alaska and other states was that there might be some
decisions made that could be adverse to state interests across the
country in terms of how the Medicaid scheme worked, generally, and
whether there would be an exclusive remedy for recovery that would
preclude the state, or any state, to collect. The department was
currently studying the issue closely, and had 20 days from the date
the suit is served on the state to file an answer. Attorney
General Botelho noted that the suit had not been formally served on
the state, but had simply received a courtesy copy.
Number 65
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referenced the issue of providing a waiver to
the attorney general for specific purposes and questioned whether
there would be a type of continued legislative power or oversight
of the waiver.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that his staff was
prepared to work with the committee in an attempt to fashion an
appropriate mechanism for that exercise.
OVERVIEW OF THE ALASKA COURT SYSTEM:
Number 364
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel, Alaska Court System introduced
Ms. Stephanie Cole to members of the committee, noting that Art
Snowden, the current Administrative Director, would be retiring in
the near future. Ms. Cole had been unanimously selected by the
supreme court as his replacement. Ms. Cole had served as Deputy
Director of the Court System for the past 14 years.
MR. CHRISTENSEN spoke briefly about the basic structure of
government in Alaska. He explained that Alaska had the same basic
governmental structure as the federal government and the other 49
states. It was initially believed that the best way to ensure
liberty was to limit governmental power by taking the three basic
governmental functions and splitting them up. Those three powers
included the legislative power to pass laws, the executive power to
implement and enforce the laws and the judicial power which has the
power to apply laws to individuals.
MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that the three branches were separate,
but equal, which meant that no branch was supposed to be more
powerful than the other branches. Those branches have been set up
so there would be checks and balances whereby each branch has been
given certain powers which allow it to control the power of the
other two so that they cannot defeat its primary function. Mr.
Christensen provided an example of the legislature's power of the
purse over the other two branches, or the Governor's veto power
over legislation, or the supreme court's authority to be the final
interpreter of the Alaska Constitution.
MR. CHRISTENSEN continued to say that each branch was not limited
to its own power, but also have some limited powers that belong to
the others. An example of this would be where the Executive
Branch's power was primarily executive, however the Governor's veto
power was a legislative power.
MR. CHRISTENSEN noted with respect to the operating budget that the
executive branch comprised approximately 88 percent of state
government, and the university, 11.5 percent of state government.
He pointed out that the legislature and the judiciary, together,
comprised barely two percent of state government.
Number 540
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that the judiciary had 57 justices
and judges, each with their own individual power base. He noted
that the supreme court, as a general rule, takes no position on
legislation, although would express any technical problems they
might find with legislation, and provide fiscal notes in order that
the legislature be aware of the fiscal impact of legislation.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained that under the State Constitution the
judicial branch was comprised of three components. The Judicial
Conduct Commission, which was essentially the judges ethics
committee and was made up of three lawyers, three judges and three
public members. That commission is charged with investigating
complaints against judges who are accused of violating the Judicial
Cannons, which was a very strict ethics code that places tremendous
limitations on a judges financial affairs, as well as their ability
to socialize.
The second component was the Judicial Council made up of three
members of the Bar, three gubernatorial appointees and the Chief
Justice who acts as a tie breaker. The duties of this council are
to evaluate candidates for judicial office and submit a list to the
governor for him to select a judicial nominee from. The Judicial
Council also compiles information to provide voters when judges
stand for retention on a regular basis. The council is also
responsible for conducting studies to improve the state's system of
justice.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that the primary component of the
judicial branch was the court system. The court system has
approximately 700 full-time and part-time employees, of which 57
are justices or judges appointed by the governor. There are five
supreme court justices, three judges on the court of criminal
appeals, 32 superior court judges and 17 district court judges.
Mr. Christensen expressed that there were also 39 magistrates who
are hired by the presiding judge in each of the four judicial
districts, and serve at the pleasure of the presiding judge.
Number 670
MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that approximately 70 percent of the
court system's employees were a range 15 or below and scattered
throughout the state at 59 different court locations; superior
court and district court locations.
MR. CHRISTENSEN informed members that Alaska was one of five states
having a fully unified judicial system. Most states have municipal
courts, county courts and courts funded by different entities. In
Alaska, all courts are state courts and fully funded by the
legislature. Mr. Christensen did note, however, that some of the
court system's costs are driven by what the municipalities do.
MR. CHRISTENSEN went on to say that Alaska had four levels of
courts. Two of those were created by the constitution; the supreme
court and the superior court. The two other levels were created by
the legislature; the district court, which was created at the time
of statehood, and the court of criminal appeals, created by the
legislature in 1980.
MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that in FY 96, approximately 143,000
court cases were filed in the state, which was a two percent
increase from the previous year. He noted that those numbers
included a 16 percent increase in the felony case load, which was
the most expensive kind of case handled by the court system.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what percentage of the increased
felony load was due to the felony, driving while intoxicated (DWI)
law. Mr. Christensen could not immediately answer that question
and did not think that statistic was in the court system's annual
report, but would check into it for the representative.
VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE felt the numbers of cases expressed by Mr.
Christensen did not appear to coincide with what the newspapers and
media were saying about a decrease in crime in the state of Alaska.
MR. CHRISTENSEN responded that even though there may be fewer
people committing crimes, there were actually more people being
charged with those crimes because of an increase in the number of
police officers. By the police being more efficient, the crime
rate may have gone down, but the number of cases actually seen by
the courts were either staying the same or going up.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that one problem the court system
has, in terms of handling their case load, was that unlike many
executive agencies, including the Department of Law, the court
system has no discretion to accept or reject cases. He noted that
with no control over their case load, and as the population
continued to increase, the court system would continue to realize
an increase in the case load.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if a jury trial were requested, would the
court system be required to hold a jury trial. Mr. Christensen
explained that the Constitution sets out certain rights to a jury
trial. He pointed out, however, that only about five percent of
all civil cases actually go to trial; the other 95 percent settle
out of court. With respect to criminal cases, Mr. Christensen
noted that only about 10 percent of those actually go to trial, and
the remaining 90 percent plead out through the plea bargaining
process.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that aside from the appellate
courts and the trial courts, the court system had one other arm
which was the Office of the Administrative Director, that is the
support system that keeps the courts going. This office entails a
court rules attorney who drafts all the court rules and presents
them to the supreme court; a personnel office, a print shop,
micrographic shop which microfilms all the records, adding that the
court is required to maintain all court records since statehood.
The court system also maintains the state law libraries and has a
technical operations branch which maintains the court system's
computer system and court room recorders.
MR. CHRISTENSEN expressed that Alaska was the only state that did
not utilize court reporters. Alaska tape records all court
proceedings which saves the state a dramatic amount of money. Mr.
Christensen noted that the accounting division was also a part of
the administrative office. He was pleased to report that the
accounting division, the previous year, had been able to collect
approximately $4.5 million in court fines, with an additional $1.5
million in filing fees and other fees which are turned over to the
state's general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT declared a possible conflict of interest
stating that he had previously clerked with the court system, and
through his personal business, occasionally hires judges to present
lectures.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ also declared a possible conflict of
interest as he had previously been employed by the Department of
Law as a district attorney, and also as a trial lawyer in the
courts.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1588
There being nothing further to come before the committee, Chairman
Green adjourned the House Judiciary Committee meeting at 2:27 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|