HB 316 - POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING; EVIDENCE  [CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 316, "An Act relating to post-conviction DNA testing, to the preservation of certain evidence, and to the DNA identification registration system; relating to post-conviction relief procedures; relating to representation by the public defender; amending Rule 35.1, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."] 1:18:02 PM RICHARD SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General, Central Office, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), on behalf of the administration, explained that HB 316 does three things to address Alaska's problem of domestic violence (DV) and sexual assault. First, it would create a system for the retention of evidence in certain types of cases, such as homicide cases and sexual assault cases, and the retention of that evidence would be for specific periods of time, both prior to someone being charged with an offense [and after a person is convicted]. For cold cases, evidence should be retained for substantially longer than it is now, and so HB 316 would set some retention standards for serious cases; currently, law enforcement agencies can throw out evidence whenever they want because there are no standards with regard to how long evidence must be retained. He mentioned a situation wherein when the Juneau Police Department recently moved to a new building, [the paperwork for] a case involving the death of a seven-year-old in the 1960s was found behind a filing cabinet, and although he believed that he could have prosecuted that case, there was no longer any evidence available - it had been discarded. MR. SVOBODNY relayed that second, HB 316's evidence retention requirements would address post-conviction relief cases wherein those convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, after all their appeals have been exhausted, then seek to come back to court in order to try to convince the court that there is some other reason why their conviction should be set aside. The proposed changes affecting post-conviction relief procedures are necessary because of the advent of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analyses that assist the criminal justice system in making sure that the right person is convicted; whether DNA analyses show that the right person was convicted or that the wrong person was convicted and therefore the right person still needs to be sought out, the proposed changes will affect cases involving homicide, DV, and sexual assault. Third, HB 316 would create a task force to address standards for evidence collection for all law enforcement agencies so as to keep them up to date on new technology/analyses. 1:22:14 PM MR. SVOBODNY noted that in the U.S. Supreme Court case, [District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne], the media inaccurately stated that Alaska law doesn't address post-conviction DNA testing; Alaska law does do so, but it's via case law rather than via statute. It is generally the DOL's belief that it is better that laws be made by the legislature rather than by the courts, because when done by the courts, it's done on a case-by-case basis only and so could take many cases over the course of decades to fully develop a particular area of law, whereas when the legislature makes laws, it does so as a package, dealing will all the public policy issues at one time. In Osborne, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that laws setting the standards for how cases are dealt with after conviction are better left to the individual states to develop, and HB 316 does just that for Alaska. He mentioned that HB 316 has received a lot input from the DOL, law enforcement agencies, the Public Defender Agency (PDA), and other interested parties. MR. SVOBODNY, in response to questions, said that the DOL's fiscal note is pretty accurate and reflects that post- conviction-relief cases are occurring now; that in terms of testing DNA samples, HB 316 would be limited to situations involving crimes against people; that the estimates of $4,000 and $2,000 for fiscal year 2011 (FY 11) and FY 12, respectively, address costs associated with the aforementioned proposed task force; that in terms of evidence retention, the bill won't cost law enforcement agencies any more than the existing piecemeal approach; that any evidence retention constitutes somewhat of an unfunded mandate currently borne by law enforcement agencies; that the bill outlines timeframes for the retention of evidence; that the proposed task force would establish good evidence- gathering standards for all law enforcement officers; and that although currently a member of the defense bar is not included in the list of those who shall sit on the proposed task force, the establishment of standards for evidence storage won't necessarily require input from the defense bar. [HB 316 was held over.]