Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
02/24/2025 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Alaska Court System | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 24, 2025
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
Senator Robert Myers
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Löki Tobin
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Offices
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered an overview of the Alaska Court
System.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:30:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN called the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Myers, Kiehl, and Chair Claman.
^OVERVIEW: ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
OVERVIEW: ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
1:31:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced an overview of the Alaska Court System
presented by Nancy Meade. He asked that Ms. Meade cover three
topics:
• An update and information on trial delays.
• A review of presiding judge orders on continuances, which is
part of the trial delay discussion.
• Information on capital budget requests from the Alaska Court
System.
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Ms. Meade to put herself on the record and
begin her presentation.
1:31:58 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System (ACS), Anchorage, Alaska, commenced the overview,
focusing on the pretrial population and the length of time
criminal cases take to reach resolution, known as "time to
disposition" (TTD).
MS. MEADE explained that the pretrial population has two
different definitions. The Department of Corrections maintains
data on this group of individuals. The Department of Corrections
(DOC) defines the pretrial population as the number of people
in correctional institutions who have not been sentenced, which
it terms as "unsentenced. Whereas the courts define pretrial
as cases that have not been disposed. She said the distinction
is that the unsentenced includes:
• individuals awaiting disposition, and
• individuals who have had a trial or entered a plea, are
adjudged guilty, and are awaiting their sentencing.
MS. MEADE explained that felony sentencings do not always occur
simultaneous with a verdict because DOC must prepare a
presentence report for the court to use during sentencing.
Therefore, if a jury finds somebody guilty of a felony, there
can be a delay between that moment and the time that the court
actually sentences the person. This process can take three
months or longer, which creates delays between conviction and
sentencing. She expressed her intention to set that population
aside; the court system has little influence over it. Instead,
the discussion will focus on cases where the time between case
initiation and sentencing, or trial, extends longer than people
would like.
1:34:36 PM
MS. MEADE said that using DOC data, the court has observed the
pretrial population increasing in recent years. Within the last
eight or nine years, there has been significant focus on this
issue, beginning with Senate Bill 91 in 2016, which sought to
change how the pretrial population was managed. At that time,
the pretrial population was about 1,300 individuals. By the time
Senate Bill 91 was repealed in 2019, the number had grown
slightly to about 1,500. Following the repeal, the number rose
more sharply, fluctuating over time.
MS. MEADE stated the number of individuals arrested and held in
correctional institutions peaked in 2022, which was partly
attributable to delays in trials and case dispositions during
the pandemic. The number has since declined to 2,000 people in
pretrial status in prison, which is about 50 percent of the
incarcerated population. She emphasized that if the concern is
with the pretrial population, the absolute numbers show a rise,
with a peak in 2022, followed by a modest decline since then.
1:36:57 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked how the figures for 2016, 2019, and 2022
compared as percentages of the total prison population in those
years.
MS. MEADE replied that she did not have all those figures;
however, in late 2020, the split was about 50-50. She estimated
the pretrial population was just more than 55 percent by 2022.
1:37:36 PM
MS. MEADE said those are the numbers under discussion. She said
the key question is how to adjust the number of individuals
incarcerated pretrial. She explained that the pretrial
population is a function of several factors:
Arrests with Charges Filed
The number of people arrested with charges filed. She said there
is probably little that can be done about this directly. The
goal should not be fewer charges filed, but a lower crime rate
overall.
BAIL
Another factor influencing the pretrial population is the bail
decisions courts must make. When someone is arrested, they must
appear before a judicial officer within 24 hours. Initial bail
is set in felonies and other cases, with subsequent bail set at
the first felony appearance. Bail decisions can be changed, and
courts are routinely asked to review bail, most often when
defendants cannot meet conditions for release. Defendants can
request a bail review hearing if they cannot pay or if new
information emerges.
MS. MEADE said according to AS 12.30.001, bail decisions
generally fall into three categories:
• Release on Recognizance: Defendants return to the community
without bail and do not add to the pretrial population.
• Bail with Conditions: Courts may set conditions, including
dollar amounts. Defendants that cannot meet these conditions
will likely spend time in jail or a correctional institution.
• Pretrial Enforcement Division Supervision: Created under
Senate Bill 91, effective in 2018, and never repealed, this
arm of DOC supervises defendants released into the community
pretrial. These individuals do not take up jail beds, do not
count in the pretrial population, and are monitored by
pretrial enforcement officers. These officers follow the
court orders in terms of administering tests, enforcing
substance restrictions, and may impose ankle monitors or GPS
tracking. She emphasized this tool has been very useful for
avoiding unnecessary increases in the pretrial population.
1:40:48 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to defendants who fail to adhere to their
bail conditions of release, specifically substance use. He asked
whether defendants refuse that condition at the outset, or
whether they involve violations of release conditions after the
fact and are re-jailed.
MS. MEADE replied that it is usually the latter. Defendants
generally believe at the outset that they can adhere to the
conditions, particularly with pretrial officers supervising and
testing them. However, many violations of release conditions are
filed because defendants are caught using substances, which can
result in a longer jail time than they otherwise would have
served.
1:41:37 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked if that generally results in an additional
charge being added to the original charges.
MS. MEADE replied yes, exactly.
1:41:52 PM
MS. MEADE explained that some individuals remain in the pretrial
population because they are unable to meet the monetary or other
conditions set by the judge, or because they incur new charges
for violating conditions of release. These individuals may
remain incarcerated longer, causing strain on DOC by occupying
jail space.
MS. MEADE stated that there are also defendants whose cases take
a long time to resolve, for one reason or another, and are not
held in prison pretrial. She said while the pretrial population
is linked to the time it takes cases to reach disposition,
delays also affect cases outside of that group. She emphasized
that lengthy case timelines have been a concern for decades. She
recalled that when she joined the court system in 2004, her
first assignment was to work on forms and orders designed to
expedite case processing. Those efforts may have had some
effect, but she said cases now take longer to resolve than they
did 20 years ago, and no one is satisfied with that.
MS. MEADE reviewed what the court system is doing, and could do,
to reduce delays. She acknowledged concerns raised about a
backlog but stated that the situation is not as dire as some
media reports suggest. While some cases have indeed taken seven,
eight, or even nine years to resolve, which is not justifiable,
the court measures backlog in several ways. One is by tracking
the number of pending cases. As of January 1, 2024, she
reported, there were over 15,700 pending cases.
1:44:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether that figure includes both
misdemeanors and felonies.
MS. MEADE replied that it does and offered to provide a
breakdown if desired.
CHAIR CLAMAN requested the breakdown.
MS. MEADE provided a breakdown, highlighting the drop in the
number of pending cases in one year:
• As of January 1, 2024
Approximately 15,700 total cases were pending.
6,440 were felony cases.
9,313 were misdemeanor cases.
• As of January 1, 2025
Approximately 10,300 total cases were pending.
4,900 were felony cases.
6,000 were misdemeanor cases.
MS. MEADE characterized this as a substantial drop and noted
that the 2025 figures are lower than the number of pending cases
in 2019, before the pandemic. She cautioned against using the
term "backlog," emphasizing that the court will always carry
pending cases and the current figures are consistent with pre-
COVID levels.
1:45:42 PM
MS. MEADE mentioned another point, the median times to
disposition are fairly good: less than six months for Class A
misdemeanors and less than four months for Class B misdemeanors.
Felonies take longer: about six months for Class C, 10 months
for Class B, and 13 months for Class A. She explained that more
serious charges naturally involve more evidence and higher
stakes, extending the timeline.
MS. MEADE noted that unclassified felonies, which include first-
degree sexual assault and first-degree murder, take the longest
to resolve. The median time to disposition in such cases is
three years. She observed that these cases attract attention and
were some of the cases highlighted in the media recently.
1:46:47 PM
SENATOR MYERS acknowledged that the medians make sense, and up
until the most serious categories, the timelines sound fairly
reasonable. He asked, however, whether the cases highlighted in
the media are true outliers or whether a significant number of
cases extended well beyond the median. He expressed interest in
seeing more data on the distribution of case timelines.
MS. MEADE replied that the unclassified felonies driving the
three-year median involve 283 cases. She said those cases
include the outliers most often highlighted in the news. She
acknowledged that there is no excuse for those delays and
emphasized that no one wants that outcome. She stated, however,
the median provides the most accurate reflection of the typical
experience. She said she would look into whether the court
system can present data that shows the distribution more
clearly.
1:48:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referenced the statement about the number of
pending pretrial cases in 2025 that were consistent with pre-
COVID levels. He asked whether pre-2019 figures were similar or
whether the number of pretrial cases had been increasing over
time.
MS. MEADE replied that current figures are slightly higher than
the 2018 levels.
1:49:03 PM
MS. MEADE said the last piece of data that provides context is
clearance rates, which measures the number of cases filed
against the number closed. The goal is to exceed 100 percent.
For example, if 99 cases are filed and 101 are closed, the
system is reducing the backlog of pending cases.
MS. MEADE reported that in 2024 the felony clearance rate was
106 percent, which she described as excellent since it shows
progress in reducing pending cases. For misdemeanors, the
clearance rate over the last two years was 102 percent and 101
percent. She said these figures are better than even, which is
the goal, and emphasized the court system's intent to continue
improving clearance rates.
1:50:11 PM
MS. MEADE explained how the courts will achieve good clearance
rates and move cases faster. The court system relies on a number
of policies, orders, and rules. Over the past year, a new
committee, chaired by a Supreme Court justice, was formed to
manage time standards. Its stated goal is to decrease the time
between case initiation and disposition. The committee enlisted
technical assistance from the National Center for State Courts,
whose staff visited Alaska courts, examined case files, observed
hearings, reviewed dockets, and made recommendations. At the
annual Judicial Training Conference in October, those experts
and others spent a full day with Alaskan judges, focusing on
best practices for case management, including how to minimize
repetitive hearings, handle scheduling, and reduce delays. She
said this renewed focus is one reason for recent improvements.
1:51:37 PM
MS. MEADE said the courts have also maintained a long-standing
policy that if the parties are ready for trial, the court will
provide a judge. To fulfill this, the system often calls back
retired judges to serve pro tempore. These judges can take on
lengthy cases, such as sexual assault trials, allowing sitting
judges to manage other proceedings. She said the courts adhere
to this policy 98 percent of the time. The rare exception occurs
when courtrooms are unavailable, as has sometimes happened in
Palmer.
MS. MEADE explained that the courts also use trailing calendars.
A criminal judge may set three to five trials for the same
Monday morning, knowing that most cases will resolve by plea
before trial. The imminence of a trial date drives parties
toward settlement. If more than one case remains, a pro tempore
judge is called in. She said trailing calendars help ensure
parties are prepared and that cases move more quickly.
1:53:22 PM
SENATOR MYERS referenced a statement that delays in case
processing have existed for decades and worsened in recent
years, partly due to Senate Bill 91 and the pandemic. He asked
whether those delays have led to an increase in cases being
resolved through plea bargains.
MS. MEADE replied not exactly. She explained that the majority
of felony cases have always resolved through plea bargains.
There are three ways cases are resolved:
Outright Dismissal
The prosecutor initiates almost all outright dismissals. She
said prosecutors often dismiss if they conclude they cannot
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for each of the elements
of the crime. About 40 percent of felony filings are dismissed,
and roughly 90 percent of those are by the prosecutor. Over half
of misdemeanors filed last year were dismissed, nearly all by
prosecutors.
Plea Bargains
Plea bargains account for about 58 percent of felony
resolutions. She emphasized this figure has been consistent over
time and not the result of recent delays. She said the trend has
been toward more dismissals by prosecutors than more plea
bargains.
Resolve through Trial
About two and a half percent of felony cases and less than one
percent of misdemeanor cases go to trial.
1:55:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the use of trailing calendars began
in response to recommendations from the National Center for
State Courts.
MS. MEADE replied not exactly. She recalled first seeing the
practice referenced in a Supreme Court order in 2019. She said
this has been a practice for a number of years, though adherence
has varied. The approach can occasionally disrupt proceedings
and there are logistical questions, such as whether to call a
judge at home at 8:00 a.m. on a Monday morning or delay until
Tuesday. She said it is a bit difficult to make trailing
calendars happen smoothly, but the direction is to make it work
despite those challenges. She emphasized that the courts are
encouraged to use trailing calendars more than they ever did in
the past, but the practice itself is not new.
1:56:44 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether, with the delays in the system, the
number of "time-served" plea bargains has increased.
MS. MEADE replied that she has no data on that point and
suggested the Department of Law may have that information. She
said, anecdotally, time served can influence whether a case goes
to trial. If a defendant is unlikely to face additional
punishment beyond the time already served, the incentive to
proceed with a full trial diminishes.
1:57:29 PM
SENATOR KIEHL commented that the legislature, concerned with the
rising cost of electronic monitoring, instructed DOC to notify
the courts when someone had been on monitoring longer than the
maximum possible sentence for the crime charged. He said his
understanding is that some of those cases are now resolving,
rather than keeping people on monitoring past their longest
conceivable sentence. He asked whether those dispositions were
driven more by prosecutors deciding "that's enough" or by
defendants deciding they had been on monitoring too long and
might as well enter a plea.
MS. MEADE replied that the court system does not track why
people accept a plea, when in the process they do so, or what
sentence they ultimately receive. While individual sentencing
orders exist, the terms are not entered into a searchable data
field that could be mined to produce meaningful data.
SENATOR KIEHL observed that distinguishing dismissals from pleas
might provide some insight into who was driving the outcomes.
MS. MEADE responded that the court system does have dismissal
data. However, it does not track at which point, in the life of
a case, a dismissal occurs. She explained that while the data
can identify whether a case was dismissed, it cannot say whether
it happened at the beginning, a year in, or two years later.
1:59:08 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed his belief that the [Alaska Criminal
Justice Data Analysis] Commission had some information on this
topic, but the pandemic complicated the trends. He said without
the pandemic, when more people were held pretrial and cases
resolved more regularly, clearer patterns would have emerged.
Instead, pandemic dynamics muddied the data.
1:59:43 PM
MS. MEADE explained that the primary reason cases become
delayedor add to the time to disposition, is not because
courts postpone them on their own. Delays almost always occur
when one of the parties request more time, usually with the
agreement of the other party, and the court grants the
continuance.
MS. MEADE outlined several common reasons for continuances and
why it is such a difficult problem to solve:
New Attorneys: Turnover and retention challenges at both the
Public Defender Agency and the Department of Law have led to
younger, less experienced attorneys taking on complex felony
cases. A new attorney may be assigned to a case on the eve of a
trial and need months, sometimes up to two years, to prepare.
Conflicts of interest can also trigger transfers to the Office
of Public Advocacy or to private attorneys, which resets
preparation timelines. For years the turnover rates were high,
but this is improving.
Treatment Programs: Defendants sometimes seek continuances to
complete treatment programs that may influence how the court
views their case.
Motions: Motions, such as to suppress evidence, are often filed
shortly before trial, requiring evidentiary hearings and
additional time.
New Charges: Defendants may incur violations of release
conditions or prosecutors may add charges related to the
original conduct, creating new discovery requirements.
Discovery Burdens: Discovery has become significantly more
complex over the past decade, largely due to electronic
evidence. Phone and computer data dumps can involve terabytes of
information that investigators, prosecutors, and defense
attorneys must process. This has made discovery a monumental and
time-consuming task nationwide that is difficult to streamline.
She said this is a hard one to fix.
2:04:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN raised the issue of delays caused by the assignment
of a new attorney. He sought confirmation that such delays are
primarily defense requests. He explained that if a defendant is
ready for trial but the prosecutor handling the case leaves
their position, the defense can demand a speedy trial. In that
circumstance, the prosecution might obtain a short extension,
but the court could not reasonably grant a year to prepare
without infringing on the defendant's right to a speedy trial.
MS. MEADE affirmed his assessment. She said when a prosecutor
leaves a case, the court may take a stricter approach to
granting continuances because of the speedy trial rule, which a
defendant may choose not to waive. She noted, however, that
attorneys often extend professional courtesy to one another,
with one side agreeing to continuances when requested by the
other. She acknowledged that while prosecutors typically agree
to defense requests for more time, defense attorneys do not
always agree to prosecutors' requests, for the very reasons the
Chair outlined.
2:05:52 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN observed that late last year into early this year,
the municipality faced a severe shortage of prosecutors. Defense
attorneys refused continuances, and prosecutors lacked staff to
proceed to trial the next day. As a result, cases were dismissed
at a statistically significant rate. He said this was an example
of prosecutors requesting continuances but the defense refusing.
He expressed his belief that generally continuances are
requested by the defense.
MS. MEADE agreed, clarifying that in those municipal cases it
was the prosecution dismissing cases, not the court ruling
Criminal Rule 45 had expired. She explained that judges face
difficult choices when new attorneys appear and request time,
citing lack of discovery or new motions. While some argue the
court should deny continuances, forcing an unprepared defense
attorney to trial creates a strong appeal point for ineffective
assistance of counsel. Appeals add years of delay, requiring
additional attorneys to review records and brief the case, and
often result in remand to the trial court. She emphasized that
this outcome is unsatisfactory for victims, defendants, and the
system.
MS. MEADE stated that although denying continuances outright is
rarely a viable solution, the court is working to reduce them.
She pointed to presiding judge orders included in the
committee's packet as evidence that courts are signaling to
parties that continuance requests will be scrutinized carefully
and must be well justified.
2:08:43 PM
SENATOR MYERS sought clarification about the difference between
"off record continuances" and on record continuance
MS. MEADE explained that an off-record continuance was a
practice that began during COVID when counsel could call a
judge's chambers and request more time, often for an extension
of several months. If there was no objection, the request was
granted with less probing or justification for the reason. She
noted this practice was intended to minimize in-person contact
during the pandemic but is no longer permitted in Anchorage,
which was the main location where it occurred.
2:09:57 PM
MS. MEADE drew attention to the "Amended PJ Order #773," issued
in 2019. She said this felony pretrial order illustrates the
court goal of reducing case disposition times after superior
court arraignment, minimizing the number of hearings, and
setting realistic trial schedules. Among other provisions, it
established deadlines for when discovery shall be provided to
the defense. She emphasized that the pretrial order, though
aspirational, allows for extensions for good cause, such as an
unfinished evidentiary analysis due to a backlog at the
Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory.
MS. MEADE said the pretrial order set trial timelines with the
expectation that:
• A Class B or C felony involving crimes against a person would
go to trial within 12 months.
• A non-person Class B felony would go to trial within 10
months.
• A non-person Class C felony would go to trial within 9 months.
MS. MEADE reiterated that these standards were set in 2019, then
the pandemic hit, so they were not adhered to very long,
limiting their implementation.
2:11:38 PM
MS. MEADE drew attention to PJ Order #1006. She said this order
appears to be working well in practice. PJ Order #1006 reflects
the Anchorage Superior Court intention to follow the 2019
pretrial order regarding trial timeframes for Class B and Class
C felony offenses. It also sets a maximum 60-day limit for the
preindictment hearing (PIH) phase.
MS. MEADE explained that a PIH applies in felony cases after
arrest, whether by warrant or not. At the arraignment, under
Criminal Rule 5, the defendant shall have a preliminary
examination within 20 days if out of custody or within 10 days
if in custody. This is a time period that is routinely extended
during the initial 10 to 20 days while the prosecution and
defense review their files and negotiate potential plea deals.
She said this preindictment period is what the court is focused
on shortening.
MS. MEADE stated that PJ Order #1006 limits the PIH stage to a
maximum of 60 days, requires discovery to be provided within 30
days, and sets a 90-day deadline for filing pretrial motions.
These provisions are designed to move Class B and C felony cases
more quickly to trial or resolution. She said judges have
reported that the order has been very effective and that parties
are working to adhere to it.
2:13:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about Criminal Rule 5.1, Preliminary
Examination, and how it relates to preindictment hearings
(PIHs). He noted that Alaska differs from other states because
the preliminary examination is not an alternative to going to a
grand jury. For example, in California, the prosecution may take
a case to either a preliminary examination or a grand jury once
it reaches a certain point. In Alaska, however, a preliminary
examination does not replace the defendant's right to be heard
by a grand jury. He recalled that when he was practicing in
criminal courts 25 years ago, preliminary examinations never
occurred. If a defendant requested one, the prosecution would
instead take the case to a grand jury because no agreement had
been reached, and because the preliminary examination allowed
prosecutors to hold a defendant in jail temporarily while
waiting for a grand jury. He reiterated that preliminary
hearings did not happen. He asked whether courts today are
actually conducting preliminary examinations under Criminal Rule
5.1, or if the practice remains that they rarely occur and
simply go to grand jury if they cannot get a continuance in the
preindictment stage.
MS. MEADE replied that at least in Anchorage, preliminary
examinations are rarely, if ever, held for the reason the Chair
described. Prosecutors generally prefer grand jury indictments
because there is no defense counsel present, proceedings are
secret, and they are very successful at getting indictments. By
contrast, a preliminary examination requires presenting
witnesses and more. She confirmed that if time in the PIH phase
is not extended, the case will go to grand jury and hopefully
get an indictment.
2:16:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked a follow up question specific to the PIH
schedule. PJ Order #1006 creates a maximum timeline for Class B
and C felonies in the PIH stage. He asked whether the court has
imposed limits on Class A and unclassified felonies at the
preindictment stage.
MS. MEADE replied not through any presiding judge orders.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether she knew why not.
MS. MEADE replied that those cases are individually unique and
need a lot more discretion on the part of the judge. She said
those cases are more complicated, with more witnesses,
scheduling problems, and getting witnesses to show up, requiring
judges to offer more leeway. She said the number of cases in
each of these categories decreases as they become more severe,
so the bulk of cases involve Class B and C felonies compared to
Class A and unclassified felonies.
2:17:41 PM
MS. MEADE said she misspoke and directed attention to presiding
judge order ending in 2405 titled Order Re: Anchorage
Preindictment Hearing Calendar. She explained that Class A and
unclassified felonies can remain in the PIH phase for no longer
than 180 days. Class B and C felonies are limited to 60 days,
and she emphasized that the period does not restart if a new
public defender or new Office of Public Advocacy attorney is
substituted, which is a change from prior practice.
MS. MEADE stated the order also provides strict guidance to
judges and attorneys on what constitutes good cause for an
extension. The order specifies that good cause will not include
a lack of plea bargain offer, outstanding discovery, ongoing
negotiations, applications to another court, new charges, or
other pending cases. The order reflects a strong intention to
move cases forward.
2:19:42 PM
SENATOR KIEHL sought clarification about discovery before an
indictment.
MS. MEADE replied that once a defendant has been arraigned,
certain information can be exchanged. She explained that under
the felony pretrial order, the prosecution is required to
provide discovery no later than 30 days after arraignment. She
expressed uncertainty about the exact types of discovery
exchanged at that stage, surmising it includes police reports or
other materials. She emphasized that discovery is exchanged
before indictment.
2:20:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referenced PJ Order #1006, dated February 24, 2024,
and the order ending in 2405, dated February 8, 2024. He
wondered, with respect to Class B and C felonies, whether they
are essentially the same.
MS. MEADE replied that both orders concern felonies and were
implemented May 1. She expressed her belief that they complement
each other.
2:22:17 PM
At ease.
2:25:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN reconvened the meeting and agreed that the orders
complement each other and do not change any requirements.
MS. MEADE addressed the presiding judge order on "off record
continuances," explaining that off record continuances of PIH
are no longer permitted in any court case. She emphasized that
nobody in the system likes delays, not victims, not defendants,
not attorneys, and not judges. She said everyone wants to close
cases, and the courts are doing what they can to move matters
along.
2:26:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked where the legislature should focus its
efforts next in determining how to direct state resources to
reduce the number of pending cases.
MS. MEADE stated that the court system is not requesting
additional staff this year. She said in the coming years,
perhaps sooner than expected, they may request additional
superior court judges to handle matters, particularly in Palmer.
She noted courtrooms are needed in Palmer as well. She said that
depending on case complexity and filing levels, additional
resources may be needed elsewhere. She said, at present,
judgeships are adequate, and she emphasized that cases are not
delayed because of a lack of judges.
2:28:05 PM
SENATOR KIEHL clarified that he sought her input beyond what
resources the court system has or anticipates needing, even if
not included in this year's budget request. He asked, looking
more broadly than the Alaska Court System, where the legislature
should focus its efforts this year.
MS. MEADE replied that she was grateful not to be in the
position of making that determination. She stated that if the
overall justice system were funded at a higher level, and both
public defenders and prosecutors had much smaller caseloads,
they might not resign as quickly from being overwhelmed. With
lighter caseloads, they could devote more time to each case,
face fewer scheduling conflicts, and review their files earlier
in the process. She summarized that if there were twice as many
public defenders and twice as many prosecutors, cases would go
faster. She said that this is probably all she could offer on
the matter.
2:29:25 PM
SENATOR KIEHL expressed uncertainty that twice as many public
defenders and prosecutors would happen; however, he said there
are steps the legislature could take to help reduce turnover. He
said that could be something the legislature does this year.
2:29:40 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted that recent news reports have focused on the
impact of delays on victims, which he agreed is a serious
problem. He added that delays also affect defendants and create
troubling incentives for both the defense and the prosecution.
He emphasized that while helping victims is a completely and
totally laudable reason to address the issue, its broader
significance lies in how the courts mete out justice overall. If
delays last longer than the potential sentence, a defendant
might plead guilty simply to end the process, even if innocent.
Conversely, a prosecutor might dismiss a case if the time
already served equals or exceeds the likely sentence. He said
either scenario amounts to a miscarriage of justice. He stressed
that no one wants repeated continuances or trials continually
delayed, and that addressing this problem should be the
legislature's top priority.
SENATOR MYERS cautioned that this is one of the few areas where
no entity outside of government can resolve the caseload
backlog. He said that as elected officials, legislators have a
duty to focus on this, emphasizing that nobody else can.
2:32:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered observations from his own legal career,
noting that in federal criminal court, continuances were far
more difficult to obtain than in state court. He said that in
federal court, if a party could demonstrate that an expert
witness was critical to the trial and needed months to prepare,
the judge might grant that time. However, if the request was
based on needing to review discovery or interview a few
witnesses, the court might only allow a week.
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed his belief that federal courts could be
strict because both prosecution and defense had more resources
available, especially on the defense side. He stated that
federal cases tend to involve more serious offenses and
consequences, which is reflected in the idiom, "Let's not make a
federal case out of it." By contrast, in state court, cases
considered complex, such as one he prosecuted involving large
quantities of marijuana production, were expected to move
forward more quickly, often prompting the parties to reach plea
agreements. He said that while state courts do not have the same
level of resources, sometimes that lack of flexibility pressures
parties to resolve cases. He said this observation does not
fully solve the dilemma, but believes court management is an
important factor, as is, resources.
2:34:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said the written pretrial orders are an important
part of how work is conducted in the courts. He noted that he
had emailed earlier asking about other districts and received
the impression that they largely follow Anchorage's direction.
He sought confirmation that this was accurate.
MS. MEADE replied yes.
2:35:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said one of his questions, given the high level of
public interest, is why the pretrial orders, some in place since
2019, have not yet been incorporated into the Criminal Rules. He
said he largely views the orders as good ideas, and their
incorporation might provide a uniform application and greater
clarity and transparency for the public about rules that apply
statewide. He asked what it would take for the court to examine
incorporating the pretrial orders into the Criminal Rules, and
what would that process look like from the court's perspective.
MS. MEADE replied that the court is currently considering
changes to Rule 45 based on the presiding judge orders
discussed. She explained that a draft exists in prose form and
was circulated to judges for input a few months ago. She added
that the Committee on Time Standards plans to finalize it into
Rule language this month or in March and present it to the
Supreme Court. She characterized this as a good idea that is
already underway.
2:36:57 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked when the court expects to finalize the Court
Rule change. He wanted to know if the court would have it ready
within the next 15 months.
MS. MEADE replied that it would likely be sooner. She said
though she is not the Court Rules attorney, the matter is on
that attorney's desk. She anticipated that within a year, or
perhaps even less, a modified rule would come out of the Supreme
Court.
2:38:01 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that the court intends to
incorporate the various pretrial orders, under review in this
meeting, into a Court Rule amendment. He clarified that while
not everything in the current orders would necessarily be
included, the rule would cover the critical elements, providing
the public with assurance that the court had addressed those
concerns.
MS. MEADE replied that she thought that was fair. She noted that
presiding judges may still choose to set shorter timelines in
their own districts. Once a Court Rule is adopted it will
provide clear guidance for judges and attorneys on expectations
and procedures.
2:38:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN introduced the next item, capital budget topics.
MS. MEADE stated that the number one capital budget priority is
renovation and expansion of the Palmer Courthouse. The plan
calls for adding three new courtrooms, each with a judge's
chamber, space for an assistant, and a law clerk. She said the
court system is seeking $22 million for the project, noting that
$7.2 million was received last year.
MS. MEADE explained that the need is evident. Palmer judges are
the busiest in the system. The courthouse has the highest
caseload per superior court judge in the state, with 663 filings
per judge, over 200 more than the statewide average. She
stressed that the judges are "busy, busy, busy" and could use
relief through additional courtrooms and judges.
2:40:20 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked about the possibility of moving some trials
to Anchorage, noting it is only about a 45-minute drive.
MS. MEADE replied that trials can sometimes be moved, but venue
rules apply because parties have the right to be tried by a jury
of their peers in their community. She said cases are
occasionally reassigned, such as when the Valdez Superior Court
judge or an Anchorage judge travels to Palmer. However,
Anchorage judges also carry full calendars, so this option is
limited.
MS. MEADE said the court system does not have any judges with
excess capacity; however, pro tempore judges are regularly
assigned to Palmer. One has served for three months, not to
replace an absent judge, but to help take cases. She noted that
the Palmer Courthouse has four superior court judges, three
district court judges, and three magistrates, but only eight
courtrooms and four jury deliberation rooms. This caps the
number of simultaneous jury trials at four and limits other
proceedings to eight at once.
MS. MEADE said that because a judge is not constantly on the
bench, there is a lot of shuffling and inefficiency. That is why
the court system seeks three additional courtrooms, to provide
the capacity needed and reduce those inefficiencies.
2:42:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether, if the capital improvement is
approved and the three additional courtrooms are built, the
request would then be for one additional judge in Palmer rather
than three.
MS. MEADE replied that it will depend on timing. If the money is
secured and construction is completed in FY27 or FY28, the court
system would request at least one additional judge. If case
filings continue to increase, they might need to request two
Palmer superior court judges at once or more. She said the
decision will depend on actual data not yet available.
2:43:13 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he reviewed the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) website and saw limited funding for court security
projects. He asked whether the court system's full list of
security project requests had been forwarded to the legislature.
MS. MEADE replied that the court system submits budget requests
to OMB in late fall for inclusion in the governor's operating
and capital budgets. Not all of those requests made it into the
published documents for legislative consideration. She said the
court system believes its requests should reach the legislature,
but the administration apparently disagrees.
2:44:11 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked that she send the court system's capital
budget request, including scope, timing, and price tags, to him.
2:44:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN requested that she also send those documents to the
Judiciary Committee too.
2:44:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL commented that it is a longstanding tradition that
the governor passes the court system operating budget request
along to the legislature as a courtesy. He asked whether that
was done or if it was also modified.
MS. MEADE replied that it was modified downward.
2:44:53 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked to review the court system's budget request
that the administration forwarded, rather than those prepared
internally by the courts.
MS. MEADE replied that she would gather those documents and that
associate counsel, from the Administrative Offices, would
deliver the information directly to his office.
2:45:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN requested those documents be sent to the Judiciary
Committee as well.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether any of the superior court or district
court judges in the Juneau Dimond Courthouse share courtrooms or
if each judge has their own.
MS. MEADE replied that judges have their own courtroom in almost
every courthouse, if not every single courthouse. She said this
allows judges the flexibility needed for scheduling and
planning.
2:46:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked specifically about Juneau, confirming that if
he went into courtroom 3, the same judge would preside there
except in rare cases.
MS. MEADE replied yes.
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that the same is true in
Anchorage. He asked if he went into an Anchorage courtroom, in
either courthouse, the same judge would typically preside there
99 percent of the time.
MS. MEADE replied yes.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Palmer is the only courthouse in the
state where judges must share courtrooms.
MS. MEADE replied yes and no. She said, to her knowledge, the
judges in Palmer generally have assigned courtrooms, except for
magistrate judges, who must locate an empty courtroom or
coordinate with another judge who will be away.
2:47:05 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether there is a cost difference between
employing full-time judges and using pro tempore judges. He also
asked whether there are staffing needs that make one option more
expensive than the other.
MS. MEADE replied that superior court judges receive health and
retirement benefits, which makes them more expensive. By
contrast, pro tempore judges are retired and do not receive
those same health benefits. A superior court judge also has an
assistant and a law clerk, whereas retired judges rarely receive
law clerk support and typically rely only on limited assistance
for some administrative matters. She said pro tempore judges are
cheaper and paid a capped daily rate established by
Administrative Rules, which is less than what a full-time judge
earns.
2:48:20 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked about the role of a law clerk, noting his
interest in whether the absence of a clerk could affect the
quality of proceedings. He referenced earlier comments about
continuances and appeals, and asked whether a defendant could
argue that a judge lacking a law clerk meant the trial was not
properly conducted or adequately resourced.
MS. MEADE replied that she did not believe so. She explained
that a law clerk is typically a recent law school graduate who
assists a judge with legal research and writing. When a judge
serves in a pro tempore capacity, the law clerk has already
completed most of the motion work requiring legal research. If
there is more legal research and writing to be done, the pro
tempore judge agrees to do it, him or herself. If a novel legal
issue arises, the presiding judge may temporarily assign a law
clerk for assistance. She emphasized that a lack of a law clerk
does not mean a judge is ill-prepared. She clarified that the
court always provides an in-court clerk to handle administrative
duties, such as managing paperwork, ensuring the record is
maintained, and operating the phone system.
2:49:50 PM
MS. MEADE continued the discussion regarding Palmer, noting that
the area's population has increased by 50 percent since 2006,
which was the last time an additional judge was assigned there.
Projections indicate continued growth in that region. She
reported that case disposition times for criminal and child-in-
need-of-aid matters in Palmer are in line with the rest of the
state. However, family law cases are significantly delayed
because criminal matters take priority, often forcing custody
cases to be postponed. She said this is not satisfactory for
anyone involved but illustrates how busy the Palmer judges are.
Domestic relations cases take nearly 50 percent longer to
resolve in Palmer than in other courts.
MS. MEADE said other capital budget requests include:
• $2.15 million for court security projects. She noted that the
governor's capital budget requested $1 million.
• $3.525 million for deferred maintenance in state-owned
facilities that the court system operates. She noted that no
deferred maintenance funding was received last year.
MS. MEADE said the court system capital budget does not include:
• Funding for a courthouse in Sitka; although Sitka needs a new
courthouse, the location previously under consideration is no
longer available.
• Funding for the Bethel Justice Center; this remains an ongoing
project under joint exploration with the executive branch, and
alternative funding sources are being pursued outside the
current capital budget request.
2:52:35 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:52 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Anchorage Superior Court Felony Pre-Trial Order 8.28.19.pdf |
SJUD 2/24/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Anchorage Pre-Indictment Hearing Calendar 2.8.24.pdf |
SJUD 2/24/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Anchorage Superior Court Felony Pre-Trial Order 2.24.24.pdf |
SJUD 2/24/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Summary of Alaska Court System FY26 Capital Budget Request to the Legislature 2.24.25.pdf |
SJUD 2/24/2025 1:30:00 PM |