HB 315-JURY NULLIFICATION  2:06:02 PM CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 315, "An Act relating to juries in criminal cases; and providing for an effective date." 2:06:26 PM CHAIR KELLER opened public testimony. 2:07:04 PM PAMELA GOODE, Delta Junction, informed the committee she was representing herself as a private citizen. She stated her support for HB 315 with the inclusion of the following amendments [to HB 315, Version 28-LS1467\U, on page 1, line 14, section 1, (c)]: delete "Notwithstanding any other law;" add "No facts tried by the jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, according to the rules of the common law." MS. GOODE said with the aforementioned changes she supported the bill. The bill is necessary for the restoration of justice because currently there is bureaucratic code that oversteps statute, statutes that overstep the U.S. Constitution, and judges who have forgotten their proper lawful authority. She gave an example of a person who committed a misdemeanor and had to pay a fine. Ms. Goode opined that a jury of the misdemeanant's peers would have determined that "he did nothing wrong." 2:10:27 PM RICHARD SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General, Central Office, Criminal Division, Department of Law, provided a brief history of his experience with racial prejudice 40 years ago. He related current statistics that show over 100 American Indians have been executed for murdering Caucasians, and the number of Caucasians who have been executed for murdering American Indians - in the entire history of the U.S. - is zero. He said, "That is jury nullification." Mr. Svobodny turned to the procedural problems associated with the bill and cautioned that if the bill passes, the effect would be that the rules of evidence are eliminated if the accused is convicted, and the trial moves to jury nullification. He said, "Rules of evidence really don't apply, [and] that's a change not in one court rule, but in all the rules of evidence." He pointed out that although it is not specified by the caption of the bill, this change would require a two-thirds majority vote. Also, the bill changes a number of rules of criminal procedure, but is not a suspension of rules. The bill directs that after deliberation, if the jury finds a person guilty, there is a "switch to whether that was just or unjust," but the bill is silent on situations such as a hung jury on the issue of whether the verdict is just or unjust. He characterized the proposed legislation as ambiguous in that regard. 2:15:36 PM MR. SVOBODNY further cautioned about unforeseen consequences; for example, the vast majority of weapons offenses in Alaska are prosecuted by the state, not the federal government, thus these cases would most likely be moved from state court to federal court, which is counterproductive to the state's efforts to stem federal overreach. He informed the committee that DOL is opposed to the bill. CHAIR KELLER asked whether courts ever levy penalties, fines, or sanctions against a juror for wrongdoing. MR. SVOBODNY said yes and no. Jurors can receive sanctions if they don't show up for jury duty, and the court could sanction jury members if it had issued an order to not read a newspaper and a juror disregarded the order. However, he was unaware of an instance where a court has imposed sanctions on the jurors, although misconduct by jurors has led to the retrial of a case. Chair Keller clarified that he was asking about sanctions in response to a juror's decision, and Mr. Svobodny said "No, ... the jury's deliberative process is privileged from disclosure." REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether the principles of the bill are connected with a recent confrontation in Nevada involving a cattle rancher whose cattle were seized by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior, after the rancher lost two cases in court. MR. SVOBODNY said misconduct on the part of the federal government is more transparent than the activities of a jury, where deliberations are generally confidential. It may be that the rancher has a moral or just cause - or not - but that does not nullify the law, which was made by the legislature. [The bill] is really saying, "The people can ignore the law you make." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he would provide to the committee an article about someone convicted of murder and after 25 years in jail, it was recently determined that he was innocent. 2:21:42 PM SARALYN TABACHNICK, Executive Director, Aiding Women in Abuse and Rape Emergencies, Inc. (AWARE), said that one of her concerns about HB 315 is that a defendant could subpoena the testimony of a victim's counselor, thereby disregarding the statutory victim counselor privilege established in the Alaska Statutes in 1992. She pointed out that the legislature recently strengthened the confidentiality statute to include military counselors. Ms. Tabachnick cautioned that the proposed bill could have a tremendous impact on whether victims speak confidentially to advocates. Another concern is that the Rape Shield Statute [AS 12.45.045] would essentially be repealed, and this is a statute that was recently expanded by the legislature. 2:23:14 PM FRANK TURNEY informed the committee he is a jury activist. He said he was in support of HB 315 "with amendments added" [amendments not provided]. Mr. Turney agreed with others that the bill as written leaves too much "wiggle room" and he expressed his support for amendments that have been provided to Representative Tammie Wilson. He informed the committee that the freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly under common law were established by the "William Penn file of jury acquittals." Mr. Turney provided a short history of another instance of jury nullification in 1735 that - he opined - led to the cherished tradition of freedom of the press in America. He urged for the committee to not rush to judgment in order to satisfy the Department of Law, and read from a statement accredited to Judge Weeks as follows: You know, jurors don't have the right, but they've got the power. MR. TURNEY said having power gives a right, especially when there is no victim. He further urged the committee to research this matter. He spoke of his personal experience with juries over 25 years and stressed that 26 states under the preamble of free speech recognize jury nullification rights. He concluded that when the U.S. Constitution was written "they dropped the ball on jury rights." 2:27:27 PM MARIA RENSEL said she was speaking for herself in favor of the bill and "the amendments that were mentioned by [previous speaker] Pam Goode." She stated that HB 315 is the first step to restoring jury rights in Alaska, and expressed her belief that jury nullification does not equal racism. Ms. Rensel supported adding to the bill a statement "that the judges in every state shall be bound by the Constitution" and referred to her written comments that have been forwarded to the committee. She spoke of her personal experience serving on a jury in Fairbanks. Ms. Rensel said jury nullification rights began with the Magna Carta and are also guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Her experience on a jury led her to believe that "we have been indoctrinated or educated out of our vote, out of our rights." She provided a brief history of the jury's right to judge laws as well as the facts, and questioned whether the government is a government of the people or a government of the lawyers. Ms. Rensel remarked: Both the trial jury and the grand jury are the people's everyday way of reining in governments at every level. ... The only way that we can ... really clean up encroachments by our local, state, and federal governments is to be able to investigate things and act on juries. ... The elections can only ensure our democracy but it's really the jury's right to nullify and judge the law as well as the facts that will ensure our republic. 2:31:37 PM JOHN BRADING read several short quotes from a book entitled "Citizen's Rule Book," published by Whitten Printers, and from an essay by Lysander Spooner dated 1850. He also referenced two legal cases: State of Georgia v. Brailsford (1794) and United States v. Dougherty, 1972. MR. BRADING asked the committee to restore honor to "we the people." 2:34:28 PM ALYSSA WILLIAMS said she was representing herself and read from a document [not provided]. She said, "Currently in Alaska, if you are called to jury duty you are expected to forget or forfeit this responsibility; you are thrown out for knowing that you were responsible for judging not only the facts, but the law." Ms. Williams stated that judges and prosecutors are responsible to protect life, liberty, and property, and "should not be allowed to sway convictions for their own benefit." Constitutionality, not tyranny, should be applied in the courts. Furthermore, the jury is to defend and justly convict the individual and not protect the government or the law. Ms. Williams concluded that HB 315 is needed and asked for the committee's support of the bill. 2:36:30 PM MARK W. ECK stressed to the committee that jurors are citizens as are defendants and members of the committee "when they're not in office." He said the bill would secure the rights of jurors. When jurors are called to serve, potential jurors are asked if they believe in the rights of jurors. If the answer is yes, they are dismissed from the jury, which is "a violation of not only our rights as jurors, but as people." He quoted from the Fully Informed Jury Association as follows: The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. MR. ECK continued to explain that the jury is the final defense from unjust laws that take away the natural rights of the people. He said jury duty is an honor, not a chore, because one puts himself/herself in the position of the defendant and decides whether the defendant wronged another. However, a defendant is given another tool of defense against an unjust law or application of such, and under HB 315, the defendant would be able to explain the rights of jury duty to the jury, in addition to instruction from a government official, and the opportunity is given to the prosecution to rebut the information given to the jury. The citizens of Alaska need this bill to further secure their liberty in today's uncertain times. He remarked: By moving this bill forth, with the people's desired amendments, you will be setting an example for the rest of the country and will go down in history as protectors of liberty and the rights of we the people of the United States of America and the citizens of Alaska. 2:39:19 PM ALEX MOORE said he strongly supports the rights for jury nullification because all Americans have constitutional rights. He provided an example of a man who committed a traffic violation to do what he thought was right. Mr. Moore said, "If you are trying to remove these rights to have a conscience, and decide what is wrong and right, then you're not really acting as a citizen." He strongly urged for the passage of the bill. [HB 315 was held over.]