HJR 30 - DEATH PENALTY FOR JOSHUA WADE 3:19:46 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30, Relating to the case of the United States v. Wade and to the decision of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to that case. 3:20:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, relayed that HJR 30 has a very narrow focus on a specific issue, that of asking the federal government to consider whether capital punishment should be a sentencing option in the case of Joshua Wade. He noted that the language on page 2 lines 13-22, read: WHEREAS the United States Department of Justice has created a capital case review procedure to assist the United States Attorney General in making decisions on whether to seek the death penalty; and WHEREAS the capital case review procedure requires each United States Attorney to submit for review all cases involving a pending charge of an offense for which the death penalty is a legally authorized sanction, regardless of whether or not that United States Attorney recommends seeking the death penalty; and WHEREAS, during the capital case review, a review committee makes a recommendation to the United States Attorney General as to whether the death penalty should be sought in a case; and REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE noted that the language on page 2, lines 26-28 read: BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature urges the United States Attorney General to consider all the evidence and, if justified by the evidence, carefully consider the death penalty as a sentencing option for Joshua Wade. REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE explained that under current federal procedure, the issue of whether a particular case warrants consideration of the death penalty as a sentencing option must be determined before the trial starts, and that HJR 30 is merely a statement that the legislature wants to have the death penalty be considered in this situation. In conclusion, he mentioned that he has not yet spoken with the victims' families about HJR 30. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern about getting involved in ongoing litigation in a criminal case, in that doing so would be setting a precedent such that the legislature's involvement in a variety of cases would be requested in the future. 3:27:29 PM SUSAN C. ORLANSKY, Attorney at Law, Feldman Orlansky & Sanders, asked the committee to vote against HJR 30, adding that her position on the resolution is not based on whether the U.S attorneys prosecuting Joshua Wade should or should not seek the death penalty, but rather on a separation of powers issue and division of responsibility. She surmised that the legislature would not appreciate the U.S. Attorney's Office telling the legislature how to do its job, even if such advice were to come in the form of a mild resolution. Similarly, she said, she thinks it is not appropriate for the legislature to seek to influence the handling of a particular criminal case. The U.S. Attorney's Office already has standards, guidelines, and procedures for determining when to treat a case as a capital case; such a determination influences the office's budget, its allocation of manpower, may require a decision to not investigate or prosecute someone else, and reflects its obligation to have consistent, nationwide standards so that the government can't be accused of behaving in an arbitrary or unfair fashion when deciding to ask for the most extreme penalty. MS. ORLANSKY pointed out that those outside of the U.S. Attorney's Office don't have all the facts that weigh into such decision making, and so for the legislature to start telling prosecutors what to consider or how to exercise their discretion in a particular case appears to her to set a bad precedent. She surmised that everyone has recently seen how high profile cases can be mishandled, especially when decisions are rushed or when prosecutors are perhaps influenced by a desire to make headlines. Winning a conviction or a particular penalty doesn't accomplish anything if the process is flawed and has to be set aside. If the goal is to see Joshua Wade prosecuted fairly and effectively and be punished appropriately if convicted, then the best approach would be to let the prosecutors do their job in a professional manner uninfluenced by public pressures. She said she is not aware of the legislature having previously taken a public position on how federal or state prosecutors should handle a particular case, and she thinks, therefore, that the legislature's not having done so reflects a wise deference and appropriate perspective on the different roles of different branches of government. In conclusion, she urged the committee to follow that same course and vote against HJR 30. 3:30:30 PM RICH CURTNER said he would be speaking against HJR 30, opining that it sets bad public policy by attempting to influence ongoing litigation and the discretion of the [U.S. Attorney] The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has strict protocol for handling [death penalty cases], and HJR 30 could be seen as possibly having influenced the U.S. Attorney's Office decisions. House Joint Resolution 30 sends some bad messages to the citizens of Alaska: one, it disregards the verdict of the 12 Alaskan jurors who initially found Mr. Wade not guilty; two, it makes an assumption about the State's criminal justice system and the presumption of innocence, since Mr. Wade has not yet been convicted, and so the resolution could be viewed as an attempt to presume guilt and influence the system; and three, it could potentially result in a change of venue due to additional pretrial publicity. In conclusion, he pointed out that HJR 30 would be speaking to the same people that prosecuted then U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, and opined that caution should be taken whenever the legislature proposes any resolution that could be viewed as an attempt to influence the DOJ's treatment of ongoing litigation. 3:33:22 PM SUE JOHNSON, Coordinator, Alaskans Against the Death Penalty (AADP), said that HJR 30 appears to involve one branch of government - the legislative branch - attempting to influence another branch of government - the judicial branch. The federal government already has a thoughtful process in place that allows a criminal case to be elevated to the level of a death penalty case. She said she thinks that it would therefore be very inappropriate for the legislature to get involved in such a decision or to even be perceived as getting involved. She also pointed out that many family members of murder victims are very opposed to executing those who have killed their loved ones. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she would be voting against HJR 30 because she feels it would be setting a bad precedent for legislators to be weighing in on criminal cases. CHAIR RAMRAS, having previously ascertained that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 30. 3:35:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HJR 30 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Coghill, Gatto, and Ramras voted in favor of reporting HJR 30 from committee. Representatives Lynn, Gruenberg, and Holmes voted against it. Therefore, HJR 30 was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.