HOUSE BILL NO. 52 "An Act authorizing psychological counseling for jurors serving in criminal trials who are traumatized by graphic evidence or testimony." Co-Chair Hawker discussed housekeeping. 1:41:41 PM Representative Beth Kerttula presented a brief overview of the legislation. The bill would allow the court system to offer juror counseling for particularly difficult cases. DOUG WOLLIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEY, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, discussed the$15,000 fiscal note. He explained that during the process to approximate the fiscal note, he solicited judges, asking them how often they believed that juror counseling would be needed. Most judges offered that they rarely saw cases where juror counseling would be necessary, but all the judges relayed that they occasionally heard traumatic cases. Several judges had revealed that they had entered the jury room after deliberation and found jurors who were inconsolable. Co-Chair Hawker submitted that it was not possible to know how much would be required for the counseling program, but it was certain that the services compulsory under the bill would require the court system to procure staff on an outside contractual basis. Mr. Wolliver replied that that was correct. Co-Chair Hawker assumed that the fiscal note was a reasonable approximation. Mr. Wolliver replied yes. 1:44:39 PM Vice-Chair Thomas declared that he supported the legislation. He relayed that he would understand if the program needed to request more funding in the supplemental budget. Co-Chair Hawker dismissed Mr. Wolliver with appreciation. 1:45:34 PM MINDY LOBAUGH, JUNEAU, read from a prepared testimony (copy on file): Mr. Chairman & Members of the Committee, Thank you for this opportunity and all you do for the State of Alaska. This bill represents a bridge, a bridge that I and many other jurors did not have at the end of a very traumatic trial. You arrive at the courthouse, given detailed instruction of what is expected of you as a juror and how the process of a trial works. What the court system does not do is transition the juror out of the trial. It is not uncommon to have major criminal trials run for many days. I served as a juror on the Rachel Waterman trial 4 years ago and it lasted approximately 10 days. For me I arrived open and ready to do my civic duty as a juror. And for 10 days prosecutors went into excruciating detail to help the jurors relive the events of an unsuspecting mother getting abducted from her home, tortured and finally murdered. It was then our duty to determine if the defendant, her daughter was guilty of masterminding this tragedy against a woman who was a pillar of her community. By the end of the trial I left there as a victim feeling closed, mentally battered and very traumatized by the burden of knowledge that I now carried. I am here to tell you the media does not even come close to covering the depth of this trial. As a juror we had access to piles of emails detailing out various ways these men planned to kill the mother, physical evidence, photographs and of course hours of testimony. For quite some time during and following that trial eating for me was a near impossibility because of the constant nausea I felt. To my friends and family I became a stranger……and each night I prayed myself to sleep. One of my fellow jury mates was pregnant with her second child. She had shared her excitement and ultrasound pictures with us early on. By the end of the trial she lost her baby and had to be excused from the trial. When this trial ended with a hung jury I turned to the presiding judge and ask if the courts offer some kind of counseling or process to help jurors deal with all this traumatizing information? The answer was NO. For me it was like having a door slammed in my face. There would be no help transitioning back to my life before this trial, no bridge. Rather I would have to move forward with this dark knowledge deeply entrenched in my mind and the minds of my fellow jurors. It was at this point I felt the court system had failed me as a juror doing my civic duty. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Please help me to build this bridge by supporting HB 52 Post Trial Jury Counseling. I may not have found closure with respects to this trial but maybe you can help build that bridge for future Jurors doing their civic duty by passing HB 52. Thank you so much for your time and I am open to any questions you may have. 1:49:44 PM Representative Kerttula explained that a similar program had been instituted in King County, Washington, and that she had spoken with a myriad of counselors in researching the bill. 1:50:51 PM Representative Fairclough wondered if counselors were available for the judges who sat in on traumatic cases. Representative Kerttula replied that she did not think so. She shared that while researching the bill, the level of professional trauma had been highlighted. She believed that legislation could be crafted that could speak to the needs of courtroom professionals. Representative Fairclough added that the issue was the risk of desensitization among courtroom professionals. Representative Kerttula agreed. 1:51:58 PM Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the counseling sessions would be privileged. Representative Kerttula replied that the information would be privileged unless the client waived the right to privilege. Representative Salmon asked how the counseling would be made available to jurors who resided in rural areas. Representative Kerttula expected that the court system would treat rural and urban jurors equally. If necessary, counselors would be flown in to rural areas in order to provide the service. 1:53:39 PM HANNAH MCCARTY, STAFF, KERTTULA, added that tele-counseling could also be provided as an option in rural areas. Co-Chair Hawker noted that judges, as state employees, could use state employment insurance to pay for counseling sessions. 1:54:26 PM Co-Chair Hawker opened public testimony. Co-Chair Hawker closed public testimony. Co-Chair Hawker solicited further committee testimony and amendments. Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to report HB 52 out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HB 52 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and the previously published fiscal note: FN2 (CRT). 1:56:33 PM AT EASE 1:58:30 PM RECONVENED