HJR 18-CONSIDER DEATH PENALTY FOR NIDAL HASAN  1:32:12 PM CO-CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18, Relating to the case of U.S. v. Hasan and to the decision of the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army with respect to that case. 1:33:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, speaking as the sponsor, offered his understanding that the alleged crime described in the sponsor statement was witnessed by a number of people, and the act was deliberate and pre-planned. The resolution is an opportunity to have the death penalty considered at sentencing. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether the death penalty option is "currently off the table, or on the table, or being discussed." REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that was unknown, but the intent of the resolution is to encourage it. He opined a military sentencing would include the death penalty. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER concurred. 1:35:14 PM SARAH MUNSON, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Gatto, understood that Major Nidal Malik Hasan, M.D. faces a court martial with the possibility of the death penalty. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out that the subject has not been tried yet, and asked whether the resolution may prejudice the case. MS. MUNSON acknowledged that the resolution does not refer to the events as "alleged," which was an oversight. The drafter of the bill indicated that "According to publicly available documents, these are the assumed or alleged facts of the case" could be inserted at the beginning of the resolution if the committee so desires. CO-CHAIR SADDLER agreed with Representative Lynn and stated he would like to see "allegedly" included in the language. Furthermore, he expressed his concern about the language on page 2, lines 5-8, which refers to crimes and an act of terrorism, and questioned how these statements would be qualified. 1:38:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN opined this is poor public policy and said he would have difficulty supporting the resolution or moving it from committee. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER noted that the subject is identified as both "Major" and "Mr." in the document, and asked if clarification is needed. MS. MUNSON opined the use of both titles is a stylistic choice. In further response to Representative Miller, she indicated that the resolution was modeled after one similar. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN expressed a preference for the resolution to be consistent throughout. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether insanity has been offered as a possible defense. MS. MUNSON expressed her belief that the subject was declared competent to stand trial. 1:41:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that none of the statements in the resolution are under dispute. 1:42:12 PM JEFFREY MITTMAN, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU of Alaska), called attention to written testimony provided in members' committee packets. In response to an earlier question, he expressed his understanding that as of the beginning of March, the Commander of the 21st Air Cavalry Brigade recommended that the charges against Major Hasan be sent to a general court martial, which would allow for imposition of the death penalty. This decision will be made by the III Corps Commander, Lt. Gen. Cone, thus this resolution may not be timely; moreover, ACLU of Alaska has fundamental and significant concerns with the death penalty. He pointed out that trial proceedings must be seen to be independent of political influence and based only on the facts and evidence presented. Because of the ethical duties of the attorneys and for the independence of the tribunal, ACLU of Alaska believes it is inappropriate for any political body to attempt to influence the impartiality. In fact, this resolution may be used by defense counsel as a point of appeal. In addition, Mr. Mittman referred to page 1, lines 7-8 of the resolution, and noted that, as worded, the resolution could be construed as disrespectful to Muslim Americans and their faith. He concluded by saying that ACLU of Alaska prefers that the committee not move forward with HJR 18 in order to prevent the appearance of impropriety or of attempting to influence the tribunal. 1:45:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether different uses of the phrase "Allahu Akbar" make different statements. MR. MITTMAN explained that in reading HJR 18, the language intends to show that the statement is evidence that Major Hasan was committing a "jihad" crime; however, as written, the resolution does not draw such a distinction. Therefore, it would be beneficial to alter the language. 1:46:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN explained that he agreed with much of Mr. Mittman's comments. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to a handout in member's committee packets titled, "Death Penalty Script." He asked for the source of the document. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN clarified that the document was submitted by him and was drafted last year to reflect his opinion on other proposed legislation related to the death penalty. 1:48:51 PM MS. MUNSON referred to page 1, lines 7-8, of the resolution, and explained that the legislation reflects only that Major Hasan made this statement during the commission of a crime. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO added that the resolution contains "observations made by people that were there." 1:50:28 PM CO-CHAIR THOMPSON closed public testimony. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER noted that language on page 1, line 9, states that Mr. Hasan killed 12 unarmed soldiers, a civilian, and an unborn child; however, 13 victims are named. MS. MUNSON explained that a retired officer was counted as a civilian, and the unborn child was not named. CO-CHAIR SADDLER understood the motivation of the sponsor; however, he, too, agrees with the comments from Mr. Mittman, and does not want to give any grounds for appeal. CO-CHAIR THOMPSON indicated that HJR 18 would be set aside in order to allow time for the committee to receive an opinion from Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, as to whether the resolution would be proper, and whether it would provide grounds for appeal. [HJR 18 was heard and held.]