Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 211
02/25/2009 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB110 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 25, 2009
1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to the preservation of evidence."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 110
SHORT TITLE: PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FRENCH
02/17/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/09 (S) JUD, FIN
02/25/09 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
CINDY SMITH, Staff
to Senator Hollis French
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 110 on behalf of the sponsor.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 110.
BILL OBERLY, Executive Director
Alaska Innocence Project
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 110.
BARBARA BRICK, representing herself and board member
Alaska Innocence Project
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 110.
RICH NORGARD, Board President and representing himself
Alaska Innocence Project
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that SB 110 is needed.
REBECCA BROWN, Policy Analyst
Innocence Project
POSITION STATEMENT: Described SB 110 as a reform whose time has
come.
ORIN DYM, Forensic Laboratory Manager
Department of Public Safety (DPS),
POSITION STATEMENT:
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan AK
POSITION STATEMENT:
MIKE MOBERLY, representing himself
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 110.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:37:00 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Elton, Wielechowski, McGuire and French.
Senator Therriault arrived soon thereafter.
SB 110-PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
1:37:16 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 110. He informed
the committee that Lieutenant Dial with the troopers, John Glass
and Orin Dym from DPS, and Rebecca Brown with the Innocence
Project are online.
CINDY SMITH, Staff to Senator Hollis French, said the concept of
SB 110, which is preserving biological evidence, was put forth
for the first time last year. Reading from the sponsor statement
she stated the following:
The American system of justice is founded on balancing
the twin protections of the rights of those harmed by
crimes, and the rights of the accused. Criminal
convictions are guided by evidence of innocence or
guilt, and no one in the criminal justice system wants
innocent people to be convicted of crimes they did not
commit. The availability and use of physical evidence
at trials and during appeals is a critical part of a
meaningful justice system.
The point of SB 110 is to address the issue by
requiring that biological evidence in murder and
sexual assault cases is properly retained while cases
are unsolved and during the period after conviction
that an offender is imprisoned or required to register
as a sex offender. The bill does provide for police
departments to return or dispose of evidence that's
too large to keep after portions of the material that
are likely to contain biological evidence have been
removed. The bill asks that that evidence also be
retained while cases are unsolved. It then provides a
notice process for cases where evidence will be
destroyed and establishes … a temporary task force.
1:39:14 PM
MS. SMITH provided an explanation of the bill.
Section 1, page 1, requires the Department of Law, the
Department of Public Safety, the Alaska Court System, or a
municipal law enforcement agency to preserve all evidence that
is related to unsolved cases of murder in the first degree,
murder in the second degree, manslaughter, criminally negligent
homicide, sexual assault in the first degree or child sexual
assault in the first degree.
CHAIR FRENCH added that those crimes are listed on page 1, line
9.
MS. SMITH agreed; AS 11.41.100 - AS 11.41.130 are the murder
crimes, AS 11.41.410 is sexual assault in the first degree, and
AS 11.41.434 is child sexual assault in the first degree.
The bill requires preservation of biological evidence in an
amount that is sufficient to develop a DNA profile in cases
where the person convicted remains a prisoner in the custody of
the state or is subject to registration as a sex offender.
"Biological evidence" is defined on page 3, beginning on line
16. The sponsor worked with the Department of Law and the
Department of Public Safety to develop a list of kinds of
biological evidence including slides, swabs, and contents of
forensic kits.
Then the bill provides two broad exceptions to the requirements
for evidence preservation. One is if the physical evidence is
"of a size, bulk, quantity, or physical character that renders
preservation impracticable," it can be returned or disposed of
after removal of materials that are likely to contain relevant
evidence for DNA testing. The language is intentionally broad
and allows agency discretion because of the different storage
capabilities at different locations throughout the state. The
situation in Nome, for example, may be very different than in
the Anchorage area.
The agency may destroy biological evidence, but before doing so
it must provide notice of intent to destroy the evidence. There
is a list of parties to notify and a process for doing that.
Finally, SB 110 establishes a one-year task force to develop
standards and best practices for collection, retention, and
storage of evidence.
1:42:45 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked when the task force will be created.
MS. SMITH said it will be named essentially at the passage of
this Act. Page 4, line 19, states that the task force will
deliver a report not later than [December 31,] 2010. The task
force is repealed January 1, 2011.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant District Attorney, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), said testimony from the Department of
Public Safety will probably be more helpful, but she has several
things to mention.
CHAIR FRENCH said it's worth pointing out that the Department of
Law will not have to store any evidence.
MS. CARPENETI agreed. Referring to subsection (b) on page 2,
lines 2-7, relating to practicable preservation of physical
evidence, she said DOL's only concern is that a small village
police department not be held to the same standard of keeping
large items as an agency in a larger community.
She pointed out that on page 2, all the standards for disposing
of biological need to be met. Therefore, she believes that the
word "and" needs to be inserted [at the end of] line 25.
1:45:18 PM
CHAIR FRENCH thanked her for bringing that to their attention.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referred to page 3, lines 10-11, and asked
if the state will be exposed to liability if there isn't
preservation of evidence.
MS. CARPENETI said that was her third point. DOL would suggest
the committee add a provision similar to the domestic violence
statute, AS 18.66.180, which provides that state agencies and
their employees will not be subject to civil liability.
CHAIR FRENCH said the bill will receive careful consideration
and certainly won't move today.
1:47:55 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT joined the committee.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if a person who has been convicted
would be able to file an appeal on the grounds that certain
evidence wasn't considered and, under this law, that evidence
wasn't preserved. "It's something to think about," he said.
MS. CARPENETI said that general statement you're describing has
given DOL pause. [Subsection (g) on page 3] says that if the
court finds that evidence was destroyed, it may order
appropriate remedies. She would read that to mean remedies the
court deems appropriate as provided in law so that you could
file a post-conviction relief action or something similar. But
it has to be some procedure that is available now, she added.
1:49:23 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked if there shouldn't be a provision that
protects individuals from somebody who intentionally destroys
evidence.
MS. CARPENETI said that could be part of the protection that's
included. You could have some standard that everybody knows
about such as recklessly or intentionally. She added that she
believes they need to protect little police departments in small
villages that are doing their best.
CHAIR FRENCH pointed out that a tampering with evidence crime is
already in statute. It almost always applies to criminals, but
once in awhile you could imagine a police officer tampering with
evidence. The charge applies to any violator.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the provision on page 1, lines 11-
13, increases the requirements for law enforcement agencies to
retain biological evidence.
MS. CARPENETI said the statute doesn't state that this is what
police departments have to do now, but she believes there will
be testimony that this is what they actually do.
1:51:24 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked how adjudicated minors are handled
under this.
MS. CARPENETI said it might not apply to minors because this
talks about convictions. Minors aren't convicted for an offense,
they're adjudicated. It's something to think about.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Senator French if the split was
purposeful.
CHAIR FRENCH said no, but it's a good point. Any 16-year-old or
17-year-old who is convicted of an adult crime would have the
evidence preserved because it's a conviction, and an unsolved
crime would have the evidence preserved. But under the strict
reading of the bill, the evidence wouldn't be preserved in the
case of a 14-year-old or a 15-year-old who committed an adult
crime.
SENATOR THERRIAULT suggested the committee give that some
thought.
CHAIR FRENCH said it's a good point because it would seem that
the same principle would apply to adults and minors.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if there was any specific talk about
what happens to the evidence after someone has served their time
and is no longer on probation.
MS. CARPENETI said she assumes the evidence would not be
retained as long as it isn't a sex crime - sexual abuse of a
minor in the first degree and sexual assault of a minor in the
first degree. SB 110 requires biological evidence to be retained
if someone is indicted for those crimes, but subsequently
convicted of a lesser crime. People who are convicted of a sex
crime in the first degree have to register as a sex offender for
life, and under the bill that means the police would have to
retain the evidence for the life of that individual. DOL has
concern with that because it could be a long time, but it only
applies to biological evidence. Mr. Dym from the crime lab will
probably testify that they keep that type of evidence anyway,
but this may mean that they'll need more space.
1:54:17 PM
CHAIR FRENCH told her she'll hear the committee ask police
officers and the folks who are testifying on behalf of law
enforcement the extent to which current practices comport with
the bill as written. He believes they'll say that the bill is
fairly consistent with what they do now, but it is something
they're a bit worried about.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he'll be interested in hearing about
security measures to protect the victims of sexual violence
because their DNA will be retained forever.
MS. CARPENETI said she believes Mr. Dym will say they keep that
information in different databases.
SENATOR ELTON asked if the language on page 1, lines 8-10, means
there is no need to retain evidence once there is a conviction.
MS. CARPENETI explained that paragraph (2) on line 13, talks
about preservation of biological evidence if a person is
convicted of a crime under [AS 11.41.100-11.41.130]. She
believes the sponsor chose these because they are the type of
crimes that you have by DNA evidence.
SENATOR ELTON asked what happens to biological evidence that's
collected at the scene that doesn't belong to the person who was
convicted.
MS. CARPENETI deferred the question.
1:57:42 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) under
subsection (d) on page 2, are connected with an "and" or an
"or."
CHAIR FRENCH said Ms. Carpeneti highlighted that earlier and
it's a crucial point to square away with the drafters.
1:59:19 PM
BILL OBERLY, Executive Director, Alaska Innocence Project, said
he sees SB 110 as securing justice for Alaskans. Alaska needs
this legislation because the state has no universal policy on
evidence preservation. As it stands now, justice depends on
where you live in the state. You're lucky if you live in Galena
because as of February 2008 they retain evidence indefinitely as
possible exculpatory evidence for potential future appeals and
cold case investigations. According to Police Chief Rob Heun,
Anchorage retains indefinitely evidence from homicides and
sexual assault cases. From there evidence preservation drops
precipitously, he said.
SB 110 is limited to evidence in cold cases and those involving
homicides and the most serious sex crimes. It calls for
retention of all evidence in cold cases and in post conviction
cases it calls for retention of evidence likely to contain
biological evidence. Referring to page 3, subsection (h)(2)(B),
he suggested the committee insert the words "items containing"
at the beginning of line17. That would clarify that these are
evidentiary items and not just test tubes and things like that.
It certainly makes more sense when read with [subsection (b) on
page 2] that talks about the size of evidence. He described the
provision that calls for preservation of evidence as long as the
person has to register as a sex offender appropriate and fair.
2:03:21 PM
MR OBERLY said the bill has practical safety valves related to
evidence retention. If the evidence is too big, it allows
removal of areas likely to contain relevant biological evidence.
It also establishes a procedure for early destruction.
Significantly, it provides the impact of destruction in
violation of the statute as a remedy rather than a sanction.
Hopefully that will address some of the concerns the state has.
Finally, it creates a task force to review the standards and
practices for collection, retention and cataloging of evidence.
This will allow the state to look at how this law is working and
tweak it where necessary. The bill allows for extraction of
portions of material likely to contain relevant evidence and he
would suggest waiting for the task force report before placing
further limitations on the size of items to be retained.
MR OBERLY said His final comments relate to the benefits of SB
110. First, it will improve and standardize cold case evidence
retention, which doesn't currently exist. Second, it will ensure
that individuals with viable claims of actual innocence will
have the evidence that can establish their innocence. Third,
this will help bring actual perpetrators to justice because when
someone is wrongly convicted there is a perpetrator who has not
been caught. Finally, there is a fiscal benefit. Justice For All
grant money is available and could be used to upgrade DNA
testing, help with the DNA work backlog and help identify and
test claims of wrongful conviction. The money is available to
states that have a statewide evidence retention statute, which
is what SB 110 provides.
2:07:50 PM
BARBARA BRICK, representing herself and speaking as a board
member of the Alaska Innocence Project, said she was a public
defender in Alaska for 23 years. During that time there were
huge increases in technology. In 1982 it was a big deal to get
facsimile machines and word processors and today she can't
imagine the practice of law without a computer. Similar advances
have been made in scientific evidence including fingerprinting,
firearm analysis, bite mark identification, blood spatter, hair
analysis, and handwriting analysis. Each has been hailed as an
advance and gave the sense that they were reliable and provided
trustworthiness to jury decisions.
But last week the National Academy of Science issued findings
and conclusions indicating that these items of evidence that had
been used nationwide to convict or exonerate people were, for
the most part, handled by poorly-trained technicians.
Furthermore, their reports and testimony exaggerated the
accuracy of their methodologies as well as their conclusions. A
primary reason for drawing this conclusion was that none of the
scientific laboratories were truly independent or objective.
Instead they were closely affiliated with law enforcement and
the prosecution and the work was done by human beings, all of
whom are fallible. This isn't the first time that scientific
evidence has been discredited, she said. In 2004 the FBI had to
notify hundreds of potentially wrongfully convicted individuals
because the reliability of chemical bullet analysis had been far
overstated.
MS. BRICK said she provided the history lesson because most
people today believe that DNA evidence is the be-all and end-
all. It's true that 124 people who were on death row after they
went through jury trials and lost their appeals have been
exonerated and advances in DNA testing techniques have
exonerated over 200 people nationwide. That's the state of the
state today, but she would like a preservation of evidence bill
to cover things that haven't been thought of.
Preservation of evidence is critical because it can help
exonerate innocent people and help prosecute people who aren't
identifiable at the time of the crime. Less than 10 percent of
violent crimes involve DNA evidence so an evidence preservation
bill like SB 110, which limits its approach to biological
evidence, may be missing an opportunity for greater justice. It
only applies to a narrow category of crimes and a narrow
category of biological evidence if the case has been solved.
It's a good start, but we don't know what advances in technology
are going to be made in the future and it seems that we're doing
ourselves a disservice as far as unsolved crimes and their
consequences, she said. Every piece of preserved evidence has
the potential to improve justice.
2:13:22 PM
MS. BRICK said it's been important to the people who work in
criminal justice that there is just one standard of justice
statewide and Alaska's preservation of evidence policies need
reform to do the same. Procedures need to be standardize so that
the amount of justice and public safety that's available does
not depend on where a person happens to live or what the local
police remember to put in the refrigerator. "We can do better
than that," she said.
2:14:32 PM
RICH NORGARD, Board President, Alaska Innocence Project, said he
is also speaking on his own behalf as someone who has worked in
the criminal justice system for 16 years. He said he echoes what
Ms. Brink said. SB 110 is needed because we know that testing
has changed dramatically over the years and we just don't know
what we might be able to test tomorrow. DNA testing may be just
the tip of the iceberg.
MR. NORGARD urged the committee to pass SB 110 with the changes
that the National Innocence Project submitted and those Mr.
Oberly recommended. He cautioned against narrowing the bill and
emphasized that it needs to say that items containing biological
evidence will be preserved - not just the biological evidence
itself. He encouraged passing a strong bill that preserves
evidence now and for the future.
2:17:47 PM
REBECCA BROWN, Policy Analyst, Innocence Project, described SB
110 as a reform whose time has come. She explained that the
Innocence Project was founded in 1992 at the Benjamin Cardozo
School of Law to exonerate the innocent through post-conviction
DNA testing. Since that time forensic DNA testing has proven the
innocence of 232 people and identified the real perpetrator in
100 of those cases. None of this would have been possible
without the proper preservation of biological evidence. She
cited the Ricky Johnson case, which shows the promise that new
technology holds for solving long-forgotten cases. It's a
testament to the crime-solving potential of modern DNA
technology, she said.
MS. BROWN said that evidence rooms across the country have
become crime solving gold mines and it's understandable that
evidence custodians become concerned when legislation is
considered that will require them to save evidence for which
they have little room. But SB 110 is incredibly modest compared
to other retention laws across the country. It only requires
retention of evidence in a very narrow category of serious
violent offenses. In fact the language in Section 1, subsection
(b), is consistent with the federal standard. The federal
government also issued regulations to make the law practicable
and she would encourage Alaska to look at those federal
regulations for guidance. There is no sanction identified in
this law so no one is going to be liable in the small number of
cases where a mistake might happen, she said.
2:22:13 PM
MS. BROWN said the creation of a task force will ensure that a
range of stakeholders can take part in a deliberative process to
consider the contours of the issue over time. This expert work
will allow for reasoned refinements. It may narrow the concept
of retention and it may consider expanded retention policies.
The provision of guidance and direction to evidence custodians
won't create an unfunded mandate and may well save money over
time by creating space for future evidence through the
identification of evidence that can be lawfully destroyed, she
said.
Safeguarding biological evidence is in the interest of all
members of the criminal justice community - from crime victims
to law enforcement to the wrongfully convicted. Often when the
innocent are exculpated, the guilty are identified through CODIS
hits, she said. Many states realize that their retention
policies have not kept up with DNA advances. Just last year
three states passed laws mandating the preservation of
biological evidence in several crime categories. SB 110 promises
to shape an evidence management policy that is respectful of
Alaska's specific concerns articulated by a range of
stakeholders. "I think this is a wonderful bill," she said.
2:23:49 PM
ORIN DYM, Forensic Laboratory Manager, Department of Public
Safety (DPS), said he would first respond to some of the
questions that have come up. First he clarified that victim DNA
samples are not uploaded into the national CODIS database
system. When a case comes in for analysis it may have from one
to several hundred items of evidence. He and his staff first
look at the most intimate and probative pieces of evidence and
work out to the least intimate and least probative. Depending on
what they find, not all the evidence will be analyzed.
If a piece of evidence is analyzed, a sample is obtained where
biological evidence is expected to be present. Those samples are
retained by the laboratory indefinitely. But if an item is not
looked at in the laboratory - perhaps because they have body
swabs that contain sufficient evidence - it will never be
opened, looked at or sampled in the laboratory and nothing will
be retained.
2:26:19 PM
MR. DYM commented that although people are very proud that DNA
has exonerated 200 people in the last several years, he can say
that exonerations are happening every day with DNA in the
laboratory. Not every DNA exam identifies a suspect; more often
than not it eliminates an individual as a suspect.
MR. DYM expressed concern about laboratory resources. They
already retain many samples that technically belong to law
enforcement agencies throughout the state because they recognize
that most law enforcement agencies throughout the state do not
have sufficient resources and expertise to store these samples
properly. We are committed to retaining and storing these
samples properly and that's what we've done, he said.
The existing crime laboratory has had 500 square feet of storage
space for the last 22 years. It simply is not enough so there is
a resource issue with the storage of samples, he said. The
laboratory also have a great number of biological samples that
predate computerization and he recognizes that those have to be
brought up to computer standards for easy tracking and ready
preparation of lists of where evidence is located.
2:28:14 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked if some of the things that are collected at
a crime scene that are not initially tested are, in fact,
evidence.
MR. DYM said yes; evidence that is not analyzed the first time
through may become highly probative later on.
SENATOR ELTON said that's what he wanted to hear because then
the laboratory would be required to hold as evidence everything
else that may have been collected but not tested.
MR. DYM said that's correct. He's looked at the possibility of
screening more evidence when a case initially comes in, but
there is absolutely no space in the existing laboratory to place
an additional biological screener. The next issue that comes up
relates to an agency that wants to dispose of the clothing or
chair or jeep seat that hasn't been analyzed. He believes that
it falls to the crime laboratory to evaluate and sample that
item. That too impacts the laboratory.
SENATOR ELTON questioned adding $40,000 in cost to the bill when
the laboratory already needs more space to store evidence.
"That's just a question that I might ask at finance," he said.
2:32:04 PM
MR. DYM said we'll address that there.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if everything in a room that is
splattered with blood is typically preserved as evidence.
MR. DYM said it depends, but potentially everything is submitted
to the laboratory. In general they would not retain the entire
item. Rather, they would swab blood samples or cellular material
that might be present from the item and retain the swab. In the
case of a picture that has 27 droplets of blood, they might
photograph the document and only collect and retain 2 or 3
representative droplets.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how he might examine this committee
room; 17 people are present and DNA is everywhere.
MR. DYM said they rely on the investigators to apply good
detective work to determine what might have scientific value and
limit the number of samples collected.
2:34:31 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked how full the 500 square foot crime laboratory
evidence room is now, how long it has taken to get that full,
and when it will be physically impossible to fit anything else
in.
MR. DYM replied it's been full since he arrived 1.5 years ago.
Recently they installed a CONEX container to hold non-
evidentiary items to free closet space in the laboratory for
evidence storage and they might be able to utilize a closet in
the back of the boiler room to handle evidence overflow. Also,
they've quadrupled the volume of evidence they ship back to
agencies. Things that are not related to DNA are shipped back.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what in this bill is specifically different
from current practice.
MR. DYM said the bill requires more evidence to be sampled and
retained than current practice. Before agencies dispose of items
that have been returned, they will probably send those items
back to the laboratory for sampling or identification of
potential biological evidence.
2:37:25 PM
JOHN GLASS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
said he is available to answer questions.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety (DPS), provided an overview of DPS evidence
procedures at trooper posts across the state. Currently
department evidence custodians are required to be knowledgeable
of Alaska statutes that apply to evidence. Those include AS
12.36 and AS 34.45, which relate to disposal of evidence. They
are also required to be knowledgeable of the department's
operating procedures manual and the detachment SOPs. Before
evidence is disposed of, the custodian must have one or more of
the following: written authorization from the case officer, a
court order, permission from the district attorney's office, or
permission from the state medical examiner. Standard practice is
to retain evidence from serious crimes for a significant amount
of time. Retention is also dependent on factors such as statute
of limitations, involved parties, whether or not appeals have
been exhausted, and if it's reasonably believed that there is no
value in continuing to retain the evidence.
Referring to the question about exculpatory evidence, he
explained that evidence in cases where a person was convicted of
a crime is retained until the department obtains a release from
the district attorney's office.
CHAIR FRENCH asked whether the DA's office allows evidence to be
disposed of before a person is released from prison.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said yes, but generally not in murder cases or
other serious violent offenses where appeals are expected.
2:40:21 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked what kind of training occurs now and what
might be envisioned after the task force is finished.
LIEUTENANT DIAL explained that all academy recruits receive
basic procedures and instructions on evidence handling,
collection, and preservation techniques. Once they're in the
field they go through additional field training. At most trooper
posts primary and secondary evidence custodians are identified.
They must be knowledgeable of the statutes relating to the
collection of evidence as well as the department's operating
procedures manual. Detachment commanders are also required to
inventory evidence facilities on a regular basis to ensure that
those standards are adhered to. It's an ongoing process of
following rigid guidelines coupled with oversight, he said.
SENATOR ELTON asked if the current training procedures are good
enough to assume that the task force wouldn't suggest more
training.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said he believes more training would be required
before taking steps to dispose of certain types of evidence in
certain cases.
2:43:16 PM
MIKE MOBERLY, representing himself, Anchorage, said he works in
the courts on a daily basis and believes that everyone in the
process works hard to see that the right results occur. But it
doesn't always happen. "One needs only to look at the
disproportionate representation of minorities or economically
disadvantaged peoples in custody to know that that just isn't
the case." SB 110 is a modest effort to ensure that convictions
that are obtained are sound and that we can have confidence in
the system. He said he supports legislation that reasonably
preserves evidence to provide confidence in the outcome that's
obtained through the justice system.
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and held SB 110 in
committee for further work.
2:45:25 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
at 2:45 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|