Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
03/19/2025 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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) Alaska Police Standards Council | |
| Presentation(s): Criminal Division of the Department of Law | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 2025
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Löki Tobin
Senator Robert Myers
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
ALASKA POLICE STANDARDS COUNCIL
Daniel Carothers Douglas
David Ross - Kenai
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
PRESENTATION(S): CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DANIEL CAROTHERS, Appointee
Alaska Police Standards Council
Douglas, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the governor's appointee to the
Alaska Police Standards Council.
DAVID ROSS, Appointee
Alaska Police Standards Council
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the governor's appointee to the
Alaska Police Standards Council.
AMBER NICKERSON, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the governor's
appointment of Mr. Carothers to the Alaska Police Standards
Council.
EMILY KLOC, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the governor's
appointment of Mr. Carothers to the Alaska Police Standards
Council.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Criminal
Division of the Department of Law.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:30:43 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 Stevens, Kiehl, and Chair Claman. Senators Tobin and
Myers arrived thereafter.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S) ALASKA POLICE STANDARDS COUNCIL
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S) ALASKA POLICE STANDARDS COUNCIL
1:31:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of governor's
appointees to the Alaska Police Standards Council. He invited
the appointee, Mr. Carothers, to put himself on the record and
begin his remarks.
1:31:46 PM
DANIEL CAROTHERS, Appointee, Alaska Police Standards Council,
Douglas, Alaska, provided an overview of his background and
experience in law enforcement, stating he served 28 years with
the Department of Corrections. He said his knowledge and
expertise would be valuable to the Council. He explained that he
has held positions as a correctional officer, probation officer,
and superintendent and has a strong understanding of the duties
and responsibilities associated with each role.
1:33:06 PM
SENATOR KIEHL sought confirmation that this is a reappointment.
MR. CAROTHERS answered in the affirmative.
SENATOR KIEHL raised a question about investigations and
complaints received by the Council, asking how those break down
between police officers and correctional officers.
MR. CAROTHERS explained that based on his experience, he
estimates that 51 percent or more of complaints are received
against police officers, whether municipal or state. He
estimated that 49 percent or fewer involve corrections
employees.
1:34:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked what the duration of his first term was.
MR. CAROTHERS expressed his belief that it was three years.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether three years was a full term.
MR. CAROTHERS replied that if three years is a full term, then
yes.
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he was unsure of the term length
himself and said that sometimes appointments complete someone
else's term.
MR. CAROTHERS replied that he had not completed someone else's
term.
1:34:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of the next governor's
appointee to the Alaska Police Standards Council. He invited the
appointee, Mr. Ross, to put himself on the record and begin his
remarks.
1:35:11 PM
DAVID ROSS, Appointee, Alaska Police Standards Council, Kenai,
Alaska, said he was appointed to one of the four police chief
seats on the Council. He described his background and experience
in law enforcement. He stated that he serves as the police chief
for the City of Kenai and has worked with the department for 24
years, nine of those as the police chief. He said he has lived
in the Kenai area for more than 53 years.
MR. ROSS stated that he has served on the Council for three
years, during which time, the Council has accomplished valuable
work. He said he would not have considered returning for another
term if he did not believe in the Council's efforts. He looks
forward to serving as an opportunity to support professional and
well-trained law enforcement. He expressed that he is honored to
be considered for reappointment.
1:36:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether he recognized that his role on the
Council is to serve as a member of an independent body that
makes decisions collectively.
MR. ROSS replied, yes, he does.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether he had experienced any problems
during the past three years serving in that capacity and
maintaining the Council's independence.
MR. ROSS replied, no.
1:36:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that Senator Tobin joined the meeting.
1:37:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on the governor's
appointees to the Alaska Police Standards Council.
1:37:39 PM
AMBER NICKERSON, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition to the appointment of Mr. Carothers to the Alaska
Police Standards Council. She stated that her opposition was
based on her personal experience with Mr. Carothers during his
tenure as superintendent at Lemon Creek Correctional Center in
Juneau, Alaska, from 1996 to 1997.
MS. NICKERSON said that while incarcerated at Lemon Creek
Correctional Center, she was subjected to sexual abuse by a
correctional officer. She reported the incident to Mr. Carothers
and the assistant superintendent. Rather than ensuring her
safety or investigating her claim, she said she was retaliated
against. She testified that Mr. Carothers placed her in
segregation and later transferred her to Wildwood Correctional
Center in Kenai, Alaska.
MS. NICKERSON explained that at the time, she and another female
inmate were seeking legal representation to pursue a lawsuit in
Juneau regarding the sexual abuse. She stated that both were
transferred to different facilities as a result, which further
isolated them and obstructed their efforts for justice. She
described the emotional and psychological harm resulting from
these events as severe and lasting. She said that instead of
fulfilling his duty to protect incarcerated individuals, the
superintendent used retaliation against those reporting
misconduct. She expressed this reinforced a culture of fear and
impunity within the correctional system.
1:39:34 PM
SENATOR MYERS joined the meeting.
1:39:35 PM
MS. NICKERSON continued her testimony. She asserted that his
conduct demonstrated a disregard for ethical standards and the
well-being of those in custody. She said that given her
firsthand experience she urged the legislature to reconsider his
reappointment. A person who fails to uphold the fundamental
principles of justice and accountability, should not be
entrusted with oversight of police standards in Alaska. She
indicated that a written copy of her opposition was submitted
via email.
1:40:27 PM
EMILY KLOC, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
opposition to the appointment of Mr. Carothers to the Alaska
Police Standards Council. She stated that Mr. Carothers
previously served as superintendent at Lemon Creek Correctional
Center in Juneau and failed to ensure the safety and well-being
of individuals at that facility, which is a main role of a
superintendent. She asserted that if Mr. Carothers was unwilling
to uphold the basic standards of a facility he managed, there is
little confidence in his ability to uphold the standards
necessary for his role on the Alaska Police Standards Council.
She strongly urged the committee to oppose his reappointment and
thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify.
1:41:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on the governor's
appointments to the Alaska Police Standards Council.
1:41:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN solicited a motion.
1:41:50 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee reviewed the following governor's appointees and
recommends they be advanced to a joint session for
consideration:
Alaska Police Standards Council
Daniel Carothers - Douglas
David Ross - Kenai
SENATOR KIEHL reminded members that signing the report(s)
regarding appointments to boards and commissions in no way
reflects individual members' approval or disapproval of the
appointees; the nominations are merely advanced to the full
legislature for confirmation or rejection.
1:42:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated [that in accordance with AS 39.05.080,] the
appointments will be forwarded to a joint session for
consideration.
1:42:34 PM
At ease.
^PRESENTATION(S): CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW
PRESENTATION(S): CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW
1:44:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN reconvened the meeting and announced a presentation
with updates from the Criminal Division of the Department of
Law.
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Mr. Skidmore to put himself on the record
and begin his presentation.
1:45:29 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, presented an overview of the Criminal
Division of the Department of Law.
MR. SKIDMORE moved to slide 2, Criminal Division:
[Original punctuation provided.]
MISSION
To seek justice, promote public safety and public
respect for government through prompt, effective, and
compassionate prosecution of cases.
1:46:12 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to slide 3, How We Achieve Our Mission:
[Original punctuation provided.]
What we do
• We prosecute violations of state criminal law
What we do not do
• We do NOT prosecute violations of federal criminal
laws
• We do NOT prosecute violations of municipal criminal
laws
• We do NOT prosecute traffic tickets
1:46:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN raised a question about State attorneys who helped
the Municipality of Anchorage, asking how many cases proceeded
to trial after a staff attorney was assigned.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the Department received approximately
eight requests for assistance and that only one case had
actually gone to trial.
1:47:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether it surprised him, as deputy attorney
general for the Criminal Division, that having an attorney
prepared to go to trial often led to settlement of cases that
might not have otherwise settled.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that it did not surprise him. He stated
that this outcome was exactly what the Department anticipated.
As trials began to increase within the State system, the
Department of Law (DOL) observed a corresponding rise in case
resolutions. He explained that the prospect of a trial, and the
likelihood of conviction, often prompts defendants to confront
the situation and choose to resolve their cases rather than risk
a potentially greater sentence.
1:48:20 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to slide 4, Types of Cases:
[Original punctuation provided.]
• Violent Homicide, Robbery, Assault, Kidnapping,
Sexual Assault, Sexual Abuse of Minor
• Property Theft, Burglary, Criminal Mischief,
Forgery, Fraud
• Drugs Possession and Distribution
• DUI
• Miscellaneous Misconduct Involving Weapons,
Escape, Perjury, Fish & Game, etc.
• Appeals (state and federal courts)
• Petition to Revoke Probation & Post Conviction
Relief
MR. SKIDMORE stated that slide 4 displays the types of cases
handled by the Criminal Division. He drew attention to appeals,
noting that most public discussion about the criminal justice
system centers on trials, while less attention is given to the
appellate process. He emphasized that appeals are an equally
important component of the system and an area of concern. He
said the Criminal Division also handles petitions to revoke
probation and post-conviction relief applications, emphasizing
that the Division's responsibilities extend beyond trial work.
1:49:12 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to slide 5, Key Issues Impacting Our Work:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Time to disposition
Expanding discovery obligations
High caseloads
Inexperienced workforce
MR. SKIDMORE stated that slide 5 outlines key issues the
Criminal Division faces in its operations: high caseloads,
increased discovery obligations, time to disposition, and an
inexperienced workforce. He reported that the Division has made
progress in addressing these challenges. He said caseloads are
getting under control and are improving, and the level of
experience within the workforce is also improving.
1:49:38 PM
SENATOR MYERS raised the issue of escalating discovery
obligations and the large volume of information involved, which
is measured in terabytes. He observed that every prosecutorial
division is likely facing challenges, similar to the Division's,
with discovery obligations as technology advances nationwide. He
asked whether prosecutorial divisions across the country are
also experiencing increased time to disposition as a result.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he did not have an answer to that
question. He stated that in conferences he has attended,
prosecutors from around the country consistently discuss the
increasing discovery obligations and the challenges they
present. He said, however, that he has not seen data or
statistics regarding how these obligations have affected time to
disposition in other states.
1:50:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that a national organization
exists for district attorneys or prosecutors.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the organization is called the
National District Attorneys Association.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether that organization might have
statistics on the effect of growing discovery obligations on
time to disposition in other states.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he did not know whether the National
District Attorneys Association has that specific information,
but he could contact them to find out. He said that he might be
able to solicit some anecdotal data. However, to his knowledge,
the association has not conducted any formal or uniform study
across all 50 states or within selected states. He added that
the information would likely vary depending on the responses
received from individual prosecutors' offices.
1:51:29 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued discussing slide 5. He said two areas
where the Division has seen notable improvement are in its
caseload volume and workforce experience. He reiterated his
concern that discovery material is increasing exponentially. It
is a reality of modern law enforcement practices.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that law enforcement agencies are
implementing body-worn cameras, and other agencies are following
suit. Each recording requires considerable time to review and
consumes a substantial amount of digital storage. He said this
raises logistical challenges, such as how law enforcement
transmits that data to the Department, and how the Department,
in turn, provides it to the defense.
MR. SKIDMORE emphasized that additional information is not a bad
thing, but it presents logistical challenges that must be
wrestled with. He said although there are no current funding
requests before the legislature at this time to address the
issue, the Department is taking steps to tackle the problem. He
stated that when asked to identify key issues facing the
Division, this is one the Division grapples with.
1:52:40 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to the graphs on slide 6, Felonies, to
discuss caseloads. He said the graph on the left shows the
number of felony cases filed and the number of felony cases
disposed. He explained that in and around FY20, the number of
felony filings ranged between 7,000 and 8,000, but by FY24, that
figure had dropped to approximately 6,000. He described this
decline as a positive development, indicating that fewer felony
cases are being filed, which corresponds to Alaska's crime rate
being at one of the lowest levels in 40 years.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the more significant point is that
during the same period, the number of felony dispositions
surpassed the number of filings. The orange "disposition" line
on the graph crosses above the blue "filed" line, meaning the
Division is closing more cases than it is taking on. He said
this trend shows that caseloads are beginning to decline, which
is a very positive outcome. Although caseloads remain higher
than desired, maintaining this downward trend is positive.
MR. SKIDMORE said the bar graph on the right shows the number of
trials and convictions which occurred in a given fiscal year.
For example, in FY19, the Division had 157 trials, and in FY20,
it had 151 trials.
1:55:15 PM
SENATOR KIEHL observed that during the pandemic, and in the
period immediately following it, the conviction rate for cases
that went to trial was significantly lower than other periods.
He asked why that might have occurred.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he did not have a definitive
explanation but offered these theories:
• During the pandemic, the Division had a higher percentage of
inexperienced prosecutors who were not as well prepared for
trial as seasoned attorneys. He explained that prosecutors
develop their skills through trial experience, but that
training ground was largely unavailable during the pandemic.
• During the pandemic, the Division had to take numerous
innovative steps to protect public health, such as ensuring
adequate jury spacing. Logistical complications caused trials
to last much longer than usual; it was problematic.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that he could not say with certainty whether
these factors caused the lower conviction rate, but they were
the notable differences during that period. Since emerging from
the pandemic, those conditions have normalized, and conviction
rates are returning to previous levels. He reiterated that while
his theories may not explain the cause, there appeared to be a
correlation.
1:57:10 PM
SENATOR KIEHL sought confirmation that, aside from convictions,
the other two elements of the orange "disposition" line
represent pleas and dismissals.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that was correct.
SENATOR KIEHL asked how those trend lines compare to each other
and to the overall disposition line.
MR. SKIDMORE expressed his belief that some of the dismissals
have increased. He explained that in Alaska, law enforcement
officers have the authority to file charges directly, meaning
not every charge is reviewed by a prosecutor before being filed
in court. Drawing from his experience in Dillingham, he said law
enforcement officers would regularly file complaints, which is
fully lawful in Alaska. However, after reviewing the discovery,
he found that a notable number of those cases were not suitable
for trial or could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and
he would dismiss them. He said this practice continues in many
areas of the state and affects the dismissal rate. He expressed
his belief that the dismissal rate has increased, though that is
not the sole explanation for the trend but rather one
contributing factor.
SENATOR KIEHL stated that he was more interested in the broader
dynamics than in detailed statistics and sought confirmation
that the crime rate is down, but the dismissal rate is up.
MR SKIDMORE answered in the affirmative.
SENATOR KIEHL asked how to interpret the relationship between
the trend lines showing felonies "filed" and felonies
"disposed."
MR. SKIDMORE agreed that it presents an interesting conundrum
for which he has no clear explanation. He said that in
conversations with the University of Alaska Justice Center, its
researchers have noted the same pattern and expressed interest
in studying it further. He reiterated that neither he nor the
Justice Center currently have an answer.
2:00:06 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to the felony and misdemeanor slides,
both of which show a decline in filings. He observed that the
data appeared to track charges rather than defendants. He noted
that if each charge represented a separate defendant, the totals
would suggest that approximately 21,000 to 22,000 individuals
were charged per year, or roughly nine percent of the state's
adult population. He expressed interest in seeing comparable
charts based on the number of defendants, not just the number of
charges. He asked whether filings are declining because fewer
people are being charged with crimes, or because the same number
of people are being charged with fewer counts.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he does not have those statistics
available, specifically, how often a single defendant is charged
in multiple cases. He said that, anecdotally, within the last
three days he had reviewed at least seven defendants who each
had multiple active casesnot simply multiple counts within one
case, but separate cases altogether. He stated that this occurs
frequently, though he did not have the data showing to what
extent or how it interacts with the broader filing numbers. He
said that analysis could be done but would require an analyst to
compile the data.
2:01:46 PM
SENATOR MYERS commented that as a layperson reviewing the
numbers, he understands that one individual can be charged with
multiple counts, such as robbery, assault, and burglary in
connection with a single incident. He noted, however, that he
has also seen cases in which one person was charged with first-
degree murder, second-degree murder, and first-degree
manslaughter for the same act. He said that while he recognizes
this as a prosecutorial tool, it may appear differently to the
public and can make statistical interpretation more complex. He
said he was trying to distinguish between these situations
because the difference can be misleading.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that when the Division reports
statistics, the numbers represent cases, not counts. He
explained that one case corresponds to one defendant; if there
are codefendants, each is counted as a separate case. He said
the Division avoids reporting by count because doing so can be
highly misleading. For example, one person may be charged with
25 counts of sexual abuse of a minor, representing 25 separate
incidents, while another may face multiple homicide charges,
first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter, for
a single act based on different legal theories. He said these
are very different dynamics, and for that reason, the Division
focuses on case-based statistics. He added that while it would
be possible to analyze data by the number of defendants, counts
are too complex for meaningful statistical comparison.
2:03:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to the data on felonies filed versus
disposed and noted that, as mentioned earlier, some cases are
filed by law enforcement and later dismissed when prosecutors
decide not to proceed. He sought confirmation that filings
include both cases filed by prosecutors and cases filed by law
enforcement, but cases reviewed by prosecutors and not filed, do
not appear in the dataset.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that was correct. He explained that
filings include any criminal case formally filed in court,
whether by a prosecutor or a law enforcement officer. Cases
referred to the Department of Law that are screened and not
filed are not included in these figures. He said that those
represent a separate, referrals to the office, statistic.
2:05:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN drew attention to the bar graph on the right
representing felony trials. He sought confirmation that these
are strictly trials resulting in verdicts, not cases resolved by
plea agreements after trial had begun.
MR. SKIDMORE replied, correct. He said the trials shown
represent cases that went to conclusion and for which a verdict
was returned. Cases that began trial but were resolved through
plea agreements partway through are not included in that
category.
2:05:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN observed that, excluding the pandemic years, the
conviction rate at trial for FY19, FY20, and FY24 appears to be
about 80 percent. He asked what the conviction rate at trial was
approximately ten years before FY19.
2:06:04 PM
MR. SKIDMORE replied that his understanding is that conviction
rates at trial have historically hovered around the 80 percent
range.
2:06:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN requested that data on conviction rates for the ten
years preceding FY19 be provided to the committee.
MR. SKIDMORE agreed to conduct that research.
2:06:29 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked what useful insights, if any, could be
drawn from the data collected during the COVID-19 period.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that several observations stood out. He
said because many people stayed home and avoided public activity
during the pandemic, the Division saw a substantial decrease in
new case filings. The more significant observation was the
Division's inability to move cases forward, which created
backlogs. Ongoing cases could not be resolved because trials
were not taking place. One chart shows dispositions exceeding
filings, and the other, declining trial numbers that rebounded
when the court returned to full operations. Though the courts
remained functioning during the pandemic, their full operational
capacity was essential for the system to run efficiently. He
emphasized that none of this was the fault of anyone, it was the
result of a health pandemic that required extra steps to manage.
MR. SKIDMORE expressed his belief that one positive outcome from
the pandemic was realizing the Division could do more remote
work than previously thought possible. While prosecutors cannot
fully telework because of daily court hearings, the Department's
investment in laptops just before the pandemic proved valuable.
It allowed work flexibly and efficiently from multiple
locations. He said this experience improved operational
nimbleness and adaptability. He said the subject is broad and
could be viewed from many angles if there are specific question
about it.
2:09:05 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to the graphs on slide 7, Misdemeanors. He
stated that the trends for misdemeanors are very similar to
those shown for felonies. Both the overall number of
misdemeanors filed and disposed decreased with the number of
dispositions surpassing those filed. This means more cases were
resolved than filed. Misdemeanor trials rebounded, and
conviction rates have increased. He characterized all of these
developments as extremely positive.
2:09:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN observed that, excluding the pandemic years, the
misdemeanor conviction rate at trial appears to be around 70
percent. He asked what the conviction rate at trial was
approximately ten years before FY19 and requested insight into
why the misdemeanor conviction rate seems to run about ten
percent lower than the felony conviction rate.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the Division's most experienced
prosecutors generally handle felony cases. This does not mean
that misdemeanor prosecutors are less capable; instead, they
tend to be newer to the profession and are still gaining
experience. He said the difference in experience level is one
factor that stands out.
MR. SKIDMORE said that another factor is the sheer volume of
misdemeanor cases compared to felonies. He noted that
approximately 6,000 felony cases were filed in FY24, while
misdemeanor filings totaled around 9,000, roughly 3,000 more
cases. He said that this larger caseload, combined with the fact
that misdemeanor prosecutors often have less time for in-depth
case review and preparation, may contribute to the lower
conviction rate. He said felony cases are typically screened
more carefully and handled by attorneys with more refined trial
experience.
2:12:27 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to slide 8, Offices With The Highest
Caseloads:
[Original punctuation provided.]
CASELOADS Dillingham Palmer Ketchikan
Total: Felony & 289 2783 554
Misdemeanors
Total Felonies 109 909 139
including including including
28 Murders, 112 Murders, 15 Murders,
SAMs, & SAs SAMs, & SAs SAMs, & SAs
Average Open
Caseload 289 253 185
Per Prosecutor
MR. SKIDMORE stated that slide 8 shows total case numbers. He
explained that the numbers shown on the previous two slides
represent the number of cases filed in a given year. However,
the total number of cases handled by the Division are
significantly higher due to the time required for disposition.
As a result, the overall caseload for prosecutors is
substantially higher than the annual filing numbers alone would
suggest. He said slide 8 only references felony and misdemeanor
cases that are open, active prosecutions, and omits petitions to
revoke probation, appeals-some of which are handled by line
attorneys, and post-conviction relief cases. There is a
substantial difference in actual workload numbers that slides 6
and 7 do not reflect.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the Division's goal is for prosecutors
to handle approximately 100 cases each. The offices represented
on the slide are all operating well above that target. He stated
that the Division submitted budget requests related to this
issue. He said the purpose of presenting this information is to
give the committee a clear sense of current caseload levels and
how those workloads affect the various offices.
2:14:13 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked whether the National District Attorneys
Association has established a best practices standard for
caseloads or whether the target of 100 cases per prosecutor is
specific to Alaska.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he was not aware of a target number
for best practices. National District Attorneys Association
information indicates it is difficult to determine an
appropriate number of cases. He explained that caseloads
encompass a great scope of crimes, from Class B misdemeanors,
which may carry a maximum of 90 days in jail, to serious
offenses such as homicides, which require far more time and
resources. The time commitment between those two types of cases
differs dramatically, making it hard to come up with an exact
number.
MR. SKIDMORE said that the Division had reviewed several case
studies that recommended approximately 50 to 75 felonies per
prosecutor, with slightly higher numbers for misdemeanors.
Because most prosecutors in Alaska handle a mix of both, the
Division set a target of about 100 cases, with the exception of
Dillingham, as a balanced estimate. He clarified that this
figure represents the average caseload per office, calculated by
dividing the total number of cases handled by the number of
prosecutors assigned to that office. A 100-case target is an
Alaska-based goal derived from available research.
2:16:17 PM
SENATOR TOBIN noted that experience appears to be a factor in
case disposition success. She asked whether the 100-case target
applies to all prosecutors, or whether newer prosecutors are
assigned smaller caseloads to allow more time for learning.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the 100 cases is meant to apply to all
prosecutors. He agreed that experience affects efficiency and
outcomes, noting that more seasoned prosecutors are typically
able to handle larger caseloads more efficiently than less
experienced prosecutors.
2:17:03 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to slides 9 and 10, Appellate Workload Over
the Years. Slides 9 and 10 represent cases handled by the Office
of Criminal Appeals, which is an office in the Criminal
Division. The bar graph provides a visual comparison, by year,
of the number of briefs filed, the number of briefs received,
and the number of cases opened, whereas the chart on slide 10
provides the same data in actual numbers.
2:17:20 PM
MR. SKIDMORE drew attention to the chart on slide 9 and
explained that:
• The gray line represents the number of briefs filed by the
Office of Criminal Appeals each year.
• The dark blue line represents the number of opening briefs
received. Opening briefs are typically filed by defendants.
• The light blue line represents the number of cases opened.
Typically, a defendant initiates the appellate process by
filing a Notice of Appeal.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the chart spans roughly ten years. He
highlighted that one point of pride for the Division is that the
gray line-the number of briefs filed by the Division-has almost
always remained above the dark blue line. This means the appeals
office has kept pace with, or exceeded, the incoming appellate
workload. He expressed concern about the sharp rise in the
number of Notices of Appeal that were filed in 2023 and 2024. He
explained this indicates that while the Division is not yet
under immediate strain, the enormous number of appellant filings
signals an impending increase in workload and pressure on staff.
He stated that it is an area the Division is monitoring closely.
2:19:18 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to the spike in open cases in 2023 and
2024. He asked whether defendants delayed filing because of the
pandemic and, under normal circumstances, might have filed those
notices earlier. He further wondered whether the spike could
instead reflect insufficient attention to the work during the
pandemic, which may have led to errors, thus opening the door to
appeals.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that is one potential explanation, but he
expressed uncertainty that it is the only explanation for the
dramatic increase. He explained that as the number of trials
rise, it is natural to expect a corresponding rise in Notices of
Appeal. He said what concerns the Division is that the volume of
appeals has climbed to levels not seen in prior years, even when
the number of trials was similar. He offered another possible
reason for the spike, citing the increased funding received by
the state's public defense agencies around 2022. He said those
funding increases were warranted, but there appears to be a
notable correlation between that additional support and the rise
in appeal filings. He clarified that he was not asserting
causation, only that it is an interesting pattern worth noting.
2:20:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that, unlike some of the other statistics
presented, the appellate figures reflect three separate events.
He explained that the light blue line represents the number of
Notices of Appeal filed, but that does not necessarily mean the
corresponding opening brieftypically filed by the defendantwas
submitted in the same year. He suggested that if a Notice of
Appeal was filed in 2014, the opening brief might not have been
filed until 2015, and likely, the State's responsive brief would
also have been filed in 2015. He observed that, unlike the trial
case statistics, appellate data reflect the timing of specific
filing events rather than the complete lifecycle of a case.
MR. SKIDMORE agreed, stating that is absolutely correct and
there are two legitimate ways to interpret this data. One is to
view it in terms of annual outputhow many briefs were filed in
a given year compared to how many new cases were initiatedto
assess whether the workload is balanced. The other is to
recognize that appellate filings do not follow a simple linear
sequence within the same year; the process takes longer than
trials. He explained that the average time to disposition for
appellate cases is between three and five years, with a one- to
two-year interval between the filing of a Notice of Appeal and
the submission of the opening brief.
2:22:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said he shares the concern about the large number
of filings in 2023 and 2024 and what it will take to process
those cases as they move through the system. He observed that
when compared to 2018, 2019, and 2020generally pre-pandemicthe
2023 figures do not appear drastically different. He noted that
2024 is somewhat higher, but the 2023 levels seem comparable to
earlier years, suggesting that while there may be an increase,
it is not dramatically out of line.
MR. SKIDMORE agreed, stating that while the 2023 numbers are
somewhat elevated, they are not alarming given the expected lag
time in appellate processing. He said, however, the 2024 data
are more concerning, particularly following the 2023 uptick. He
explained that although he is not "ringing alarm bells," the
Division views the recent increase as an important trend to
monitor closely. He noted that the three- to five-year
disposition period remains a concern, and while the backlog had
been declining in 2021 and 2022 as more cases were closed than
opened, the pattern in 2023 and 2024 suggests a possible
reversal. He expressed concern that appellate delays could begin
to rise again, recalling that in 2017 and 2018, the court system
and both prosecution and defense agencies had to work
intensively to address a significant appellate backlog. He said
the spike raises concerns that such a backlog could reemerge.
2:25:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he has no quarrel with that
observation.
2:25:27 PM
SENATOR MYERS requested data on appeal outcomes, asking how many
cases were overturned, retried, or upheld. He stated that if the
vast majority of appeals resulted in no change, it would
indicate that the Criminal Division is performing well, even
with rising numbers. However, if a large number of cases were
reversed or retried, it might warrant further discussion.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that there are two main categories of
appellate resolutions: published opinions and summary
dispositions on the merits. He reported that there were 31
published opinions, of which 14 were affirmed, eight were
reversed or vacated, and six were affirmed in part and vacated
in partroughly a 5050 split overall. He said there were 100
summary dispositions, with 84 affirmed, eight reversed, and four
affirmed in part and reversed in part. He concluded that, taken
together, a substantial majority of appeals were affirmed.
2:26:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that, based on the numbers for summary
dispositions, he suspects that more than 80 percent of
convictions were affirmed.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that he had not calculated the exact
percentage but agreed that the affirmation rate would be good.
2:27:31 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued the discussion of Appellate Workload Over
the Years, slide 10:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Appellate Workload Over the Years
Opening
Briefs Briefs Cases
Filed Received Opened
2014 Total 153 134 154
2015 Total 168 154 157
2016 Total 148 141 148
2017 Total 181 164 166
2018 Total 162 131 195
2019 Total 139 128 169
2020 Total 139 131 150
2021 Total 147 130 100
2022 Total 126 95 99
2023 Total 88 81 153
2024 Total 97 117 203
MR. SKIDMORE stated that slide 10 has the same information shown
on slide 9 but instead of a visual bar graph, the chart lists
the exact number of briefs filed, opening briefs received, and
cases opened. He explained that this format allows committee
members another way to analyze the data.
2:28:25 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to slide 11, Post Conviction Relief (PCR):
[Original punctuation provided.]
What is a PCR?
376 pending PCRs
Work of PCRs
• civil discovery
• review old files & old court records
• different legal issues/standards
FY Year PCR was filed # of Cases
2000 - 2009 6
2012 - 2015 15
2016 - 2019 68
2020 40
2021 30
2022 44
2023 47
2024 80
2025 46
Grand Total 376
2:28:31 PM
MR. SKIDMORE explained that post conviction relief (PCR), refers
to cases in which an individual has already been tried,
convicted, and exhausted the standard appellate process, but
then seeks to challenge the conviction through a secondary
method known as a collateral attack. He said these petitions are
typically based on claims of newly discovered evidence,
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, or something
along those lines.
MR. SKIDMORE said the rationale behind including this slide is
to highlight the number of pending PCRs. He underscored that of
the six PCR cases filed between 2000 and 2009, all six remain
unresolved. He stated that the cases are old, still kicking
around, and pending outcomes. A PCR can be 24 years old and
still active. That is how long they can last, and they
substantially affect the workload of staff handling them.
MR. SKIDMORE emphasized that it is cause for concern that there
are 376 post conviction relief cases and the length of time they
have remained active. He stated that these cases tend to
languish for extended periods. He noted that the matter has been
raised during the budget process and that the Division has
requested resources to help address it. He stated that he
included this information at the committee's request.
2:30:14 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to slide 12, Time to Disposition:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Time to Disposition (Determined by the mean)
Felonies 2-3 years
Misdemeanors 1-1.5 years
Appeals 3-5 years
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the Division's figures were
calculated using the mean, or the average length of time
required to resolve a trial case. He said the court system
presented its data to the committee using the median, which
reflects how long it took to dispose of a typical case and does
not account for all the pretrial activity the Division
undertakes to prepare cases for trial. He reiterated that the
Division used the mean to determine its timeframes, emphasizing
that the mean incorporates data from all cases and captures both
the time to reach trial and the time to dispose of each case.
MR. SKIDMORE said that using the mean provides a more
comprehensive picture, as it accounts for how long it takes a
case to reach trial as well as how long it takes to reach final
disposition. He emphasized that this broader measure aligns with
the concerns most often raised by citizens and reported in the
media regarding delays in case resolution. He said this is why
the Division relies on the mean rather than the median when
presenting its figures.
MR. SKIDMORE said the numbers on the slide were taken from
research conducted by the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis
Commission and not merely numbers the Department calculated. He
noted that the court system provided the data on how long it
takes a case to get through the appellate process in the Court
of Appeals, shown as 3 5 years.
2:32:40 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to a bar graph on slide 13, Prosecutor
Vacancy, which compared the following prosecutor vacancy rates
for FY23 FY25:
Prosecutor Vacancy Rates Comparison
FY23 - FY25
Lacking a Body Still Recruiting
FY23 15 percent 7 percent
FY24 11 percent 7 percent
FY25 11 percent 6 percent
MR. SKIDMORE said on this particular slide, the vacancy rate for
prosecutors in FY23 was 15 percent and in FY25 declined to 11
percent, a level of improvement the Division is very proud of.
The next column over represents the total number of positions
the Division is "still recruiting for at a particular time. He
explained that in FY23, there were 21 position control numbers
(PCNs) where nobody physically sat at the desk and performed
work. However, of that 15 percent vacancy rate, only about 7
percent represented positions where no one had yet accepted an
offer. For example, if a law student accepts a position but
cannot begin for six months, that PCN is still listed in the
"Lacking a Body" column because the individual is not yet
physically in the seat, even though the position is technically
filled. He said the data therefore provide two perspectives: the
number of positions that are vacant at a specific moment and the
number of those vacancies for which recruitment is still
ongoing. This distinction helps illustrate both the current
staffing status and the Division's progress in filling open
positions.
2:34:11 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked at what point in time the vacancy data
represents in each of these year.
MR. SKIDMORE replied January.
SENATOR KIEHL asked how the data might compare if viewed as a
weighted number over the course of an entire year.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he does not know the answer to that.
SENATOR KIEHL asked if January is a particularly high vacancy
month. He expressed uncertainty about graduate timelines for
taking the bar, accepting job offers, and completing clerkships
and asked whether January tends to be a period of particularly
high vacancies.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he did not pick January because it
represented a particularly high or low vacancy month. The
Division picked January because it is right before session
begins, when the legislature requested the numbers. Thus, it
represent the most recent information at the time of the
request.
2:35:01 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered an observation about the timing of new
hires and recent law graduates. He noted that within the Alaska
Court System, judicial clerkships for new graduates typically
end in August or September. He said many of those clerks later
accept positions with State agencies after taking some personal
time. As a result, the month of January is a likely month for
graduates to start work following their clerkships.
MR. SKIDMORE said in January, the Division has a number of
third-year law students who accept positions but delay their
start date until June or July because they are still completing
their studies. He explained that this accounts for some of the
difference on the chart between vacancies and accepted offers.
He reiterated that January was chosen as the reporting point
simply because it aligns with the timing of legislative requests
for data.
MR. SKIDMORE highlighted another important point, stating that
in 2023 the Division had a total of 141 prosecutor positions,
compared to 146 in 2025. He said not only has the vacancy rate
decreased, but the total number of authorized positions has
increased, representing another positive factor to consider when
reviewing these numbers.
2:36:37 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to the bar graph on slide 14, Paralegal
Vacancy, which compared the following paralegal vacancy rates
for FY23 FY25:
Paralegal Vacancy Rates Comparison
FY23 - FY25
Lacking a Body Still Recruiting
FY23 12 percent 8 percent
FY24 7 percent 8 percent
FY25 7 percent 5 percent
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the same analysis was conducted for
paralegal positions, showing a significant improvement in
vacancy rates. He pointed out an interesting detail in his 2024
data, where the number of vacant positions was lower than the
number of positions under active recruitment. He explained that
this occurs because the Division can notice upcoming departures
and begin recruiting for those positions before the current
employees have actually left.
2:37:19 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to the bar graph on slide 15, Support Staff
Vacancy, which compared the following support staff vacancy
rates for FY23 FY25:
Support Staff Vacancy Rates Comparison
FY23 - FY25
Lacking a Body Still Recruiting
FY23 14 percent 8 percent
FY24 7 percent 8 percent
FY25 12 percent 10 percent
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the same analysis was conducted for
support staff and law office assistants. He reported that there
was a significant decrease in vacancy rates from 2023 to 2024,
followed by a slight uptick in 2025; however, the 2025 rate
remains lower than in 2023. He noted, by way of explanation,
that the Division added positions during this periodsix
additional paralegal positions between 2022 and 2025, and nine
additional law office assistant positions over the same
timeframe. He said it is encouraging that vacancy rates have
continued to decline even as the total number of positions has
grown, describing these trends as very positive developments for
the Division.
2:38:11 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to pie charts on slide 16, Prosecutor
Experience. The committee specifically requested this topic for
discussion. He said the vacancy rate is declining, meaning job
recruitment and retention have improved. He pointed out that not
every range has the same number of years, so the amount of
experience is not always an exact "apples-to-apples" or direct
comparisons. He compared Divisions 2022 and 2025 experience and
retention figures as follows:
YEARS OF MR. SKIDMORE's
PERCENTAGES/ EXPERIENCE COMPARISON COMMENTS
YEAR PROSECUTORS RANGES ON THE 2022 & 2025 DATA
2022 22 percent/ 15+ The percentage increased
26 prosecutors and the raw number of
2025 27 percent/ 15+ years of experience has
34 prosecutors risen substantially.
2022 14 percent/ 10 to 15 Although not an exact
16 prosecutors apples-to-apples range
2025 22 percent/ 8 to 15 comparison, retention
28 prosecutors increased substantially.
2022 19 percent/ 5 to 10 Again, not an apples-to-
22 prosecutors apples comparison, but the
2025 22 percent/ 4 to 8 years of experience
28 prosecutors increased.
2022 21 percent/ 2 to 5 Retention in this range
25 prosecutors declined by nearly 50 percent
2025 11 percent/ 2 to 4
13 prosecutors
2022 24 percent/ 0 to 2 Retention in this range
28 prosecutors declined.
2025 18 percent/ 0 to 2
23 prosecutors
MR. SKIDMORE summarized the discussion, stating the Division has
done a much better job with retention overall. He attributed
much of this progress to legislative support for increased pay
and expanded training opportunities and expressed his
appreciation for that support.
2:41:17 PM
SENATOR MYERS sought clarification on whether years of
experience only includes time spent with the Department of Law
or does it include time transferred from other agencies as well.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the totals include experience from
other agencies as well. He said the Division considers an
attorney's overall years of experience, not just time served
within the Department of Law. He emphasized that lateral hires
those joining from other offices with prior prosecutorial
experienceare highly valued, as they bring significant benefit
to the Division. That experience is included in the figures
shown in the pie charts.
2:41:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked why the ranges for years of experience were
setup without data that allowed for an exact, apples-to-apples
comparison.
MR. SKIDMORE apologized and explained that the data were
produced in that format and once he realized the ranges were
structured differently, there was not enough time to have them
redone before the presentation. He said despite the differences,
the charts are still illustrative of the improvements that have
been made in retention, even if it's not exact.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether revising the numbers to create exact
apples-to-apples comparisons would be a major undertaking.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that it would probably take about one to
two weeks to complete but said it could be done.
CHAIR CLAMAN responded that he would appreciate receiving that
information.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he would revise data to ensure a
direct comparison.
2:42:36 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN observed that one of the biggest challenges in the
past had been the shortage of prosecutors with five to fifteen
years of experience. He said it appears there has been
significant progress in strengthening that mid-level group. He
inquired about the factors that have contributed to the
retention success of this group.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that there has been a substantial increase
in prosecutors with five to fifteen years of experience. He said
the pie chart shows those categories expanding, reflecting
growth not only among the most senior prosecutors but also
within the mid-level ranks, the "yeomen" who are steadily
advancing through the Division. He stated that this is a point
of pride for the Division and attributed much of the improvement
to pay increases, which he said made a significant difference.
He said that another factor contributing to retention success
were training opportunities, which he covers on the next slide.
2:44:30 PM
MR. SKIDMORE moved to slide 17, Training. He stated that over
the past four to five years, the Division has made substantial
efforts to expand and strengthen its training programs for
prosecutors. He said this initiative stemmed from internal
surveys showing that staff wanted more training opportunities.
He explained that the Division reviewed research on the subject,
including an article titled Crisis and Prosecution, which was
presented to the committee about two years earlier. That study
examined strategies for improving retention and found that
offices with strong training programs tended to retain staff
more effectively, even without increases in pay or other
benefits. He said Manhattan has one of those offices that is
cited in research for having a phenomenal training program. It
has maintained significantly higher retention rates than other
offices in New York despite not having implemented major salary
increases. He stated that the Division keyed in on training as
an essential component needed for staff retention.
2:45:46 PM
MR. SKIDMORE said the Division now has two positions that are
dedicated just to training. He listed the Division's training
components:
• Onboarding for all new hires.
• A mentoring program.
• A week-long trial training academy focused on trial advocacy
for beginners.
• An intermediate trial advocacy program that will launch this
year.
• A week-long substantive law training for newer attorneys.
• The annual conference.
• Appellate update training offered throughout the year.
• Training related to sexual assault response teams and other
sex-offense topics.
MR. SKIDMORE said that all of these training components are
internal, except for the sex-crime training, which involves
participation in external training programs.
2:46:51 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said he would like to know how Alaska's
prosecutor salaries compare to those in other agencies, other
states, or other organizations within the state that employ
prosecutors.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he did not have recent information
available but would look into it and provide updated information
to the committee.
SENATOR STEVENS asked with whom the Division competes for
attorneys, suggesting the City of Anchorage as a possibility.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the Division competes not only with
the Municipality of Anchorage but also with prosecutors' offices
nationwide. He said the Division compares itself to a range of
jurisdictions, large cities, mid-sized areas, and smaller
communities, to assess competitiveness. He cited King County,
Washington, as one benchmark. He emphasized that the Division
faces a broader national challenge because the number of law
school graduates has declined over the past decade, and bar
passage rates have dropped. This combination results in a
smaller pool of available attorneys, meaning the Division must
compete with nearly every jurisdiction for talent.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the most appropriate comparison remains
with other prosecutors' offices, as those represent the fairest
measure of competitiveness. He said the Division continues to
face challenges in recruitment and retention but expressed
appreciation for the progress made. He said the Division intends
to maintain its efforts and not "take its foot off the gas," in
order to retain its prosecutors.
2:48:59 PM
SENATOR STEVENS commented that it is important to keep up with
compensation trends and that any comparative salary information
would be helpful.
MR. SKIDMORE said he would make every effort to gather and
provide that information.
2:49:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN shared that in a Judiciary Finance Subcommittee
hearing, members examined specific pay rates for prosecutors in
Washington State, including those in King County and Oregon, as
well as the county encompassing Portland. The committee
concentrated on comparisons within the Pacific Northwest,
recognizing that the issue has both national and regional
elements. He mentioned that California was not considered a
major focus.
2:50:13 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued the discussion on slide 17, highlighting
the value of the expanded training program. He emphasized the
program's importance and that it is yielding strong results. He
said the Division is extremely proud of its progress.
2:50:35 PM
SENATOR MYERS observed that violent crimes appear to have more
trial delays and are generally higher-level offenses than
property crimes. He noted that while property crimes have been
decreasing, violent crimes have remained relatively stable or
have increased slightly. He inquired about delays in prosecuting
higher-level offenses and asked whether trial delays in those
cases might affect crime rates and incident reporting.
2:51:43 PM
MR. SKIDMORE affirmed that the reduction in the crime rate has
been more dramatic for property offenses than for violent
crimes, although violent crimes have also trended downward over
the last several years. He said he could not provide percentages
without reviewing the data but recalled that while some
categories of violent crimes ticked up, violent crimes as a
whole declined by a few percentage points in those years.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that trial delays, particularly those
resulting in dismissals or lower resolutions than prosecutors
would have preferred, have a direct impact on the victims
involved. He said he does not know if there is a correlation
between delayed case resolution and overall crime rates,
underscoring that he has not studied the issue and has seen no
clear data confirming that relationship.
2:52:53 PM
MR. SKIDMORE said the more immediate concern is the lack of
justice provided to victims when delays occur. He said there is
also concern that this lack of justice may affect whether people
choose to report crimes. He explained that the Uniform Crime
[Report] shows about a 15 percent decrease in reported sexual
assaults, which could indicate either a positive reduction in
offenses or, alternatively, fewer victims coming forward and
reporting. He stressed that it is not yet known which
explanation is correct, but if court delays were contributing to
underreporting, that would be troubling. He emphasized that
these are unknowns, and that the criminal justice system must
continue to study to get answers.
MR. SKIDMORE informed the committee that the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault has reauthorized another Alaska
Victimization Study, scheduled for 2026. He said the goal is to
compare reductions in reported crimes with the new victimization
data to determine whether the decline reflects fewer actual
offenses or simply fewer reports. He concluded that those in the
criminal justice system are watching these trends closely to
understand what is truly occurring.
2:55:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN informed the committee that, regarding trial delays
in the world of three separate branches of government, the
Supreme Court recently issued a new Supreme Court order on
pretrial procedures. He said this indicates that, beyond the
discussions occurring in the Capitol, the judicial branch has
taken action by adopting a new order that addresses some of the
same concerns raised in this hearing.
2:55:55 PM
SENATOR MYERS said that is good news and he is interested in
seeing the Supreme Court order.
CHAIR CLAMAN replied that he would provide it to him.
SENATOR MYERS said that he obtained his crime rate figures from
an Alaska Beacon article published about a month ago, which
referenced the National Crime Victimization Survey. He noted
that survey is updated annually. He said he is interested in
comparing Alaska's numbers to national trends. The National
Crime Victimization Survey indicates only about half of violent
crimes are reported, which is troubling if Alaska's rates are on
par.
MR. SKIDMORE pointed out that the Alaska Victimization Study
focuses specifically on sex offenses, not all violent crime. He
explained that because sexual offenses have been such a
significant issue in the state, available funding and research
has been directed toward that area. The Alaska Victimization
Survey is conducted about every five years due to limited
funding.
2:57:41 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said that as a former educator, he is interested
in the Department's training academy. He asked whether it is
Alaska-centric and department-run or whether the university and
outside experts are involved. He asked him to elaborate on the
mentorship program as well.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that department staff operate the academy
internally. He said the department employs its own trainers, and
other prosecutors also assist with instruction. He explained
that the training is Alaska-specific and focused on Alaska law,
which is the central concept behind the program. He stated that
the university is not typically involved in instruction because
its faculty do not necessarily have the expertise to teach
Alaska law or trial practice. However, the Department has
collaborated with the University of Alaska Anchorage, including
the recent remodeling of one of its courtrooms into a shared
training facility for use by both the Department and the
university. He emphasized that while partnerships exist, the
training is conducted within the department for Alaska
prosecutors.
SENATOR STEVENS asked about the mentorship program.
MR. SKIDMORE said the general concept is to pair new prosecutors
with more experienced prosecutors.
2:59:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether, as part of the training, the
department ever brings in prosecutors from outside the state as
guest lecturers or if all instruction is conducted in-state.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that all training has been conducted in-
state with individuals who are well-versed in Alaska-specific
laws. He said outside experts could teach general trial
advocacy, but substantive law and Alaska's legal framework is
different enough from other states that the Department's focus
remains on in-state instruction.
2:59:55 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:59 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| LAW Criminal Division Presentation to SJUD 3.19.25.pdf |
SJUD 3/19/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Daniel Carothers Resume - Alaska Police Standards Council 3.17.25.pdf |
SJUD 3/19/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| David Ross Resume- Alaska Police Standards Council 3.17.25.pdf |
SJUD 3/19/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Daniel Carothers Consideration for AK Police Standards Council - Letter of Opposition from Amber Nickerson 3.19.25.pdf |
SJUD 3/19/2025 1:30:00 PM |