SJUD - 2/17/95 SB 10 CRIMINAL DISCOVERY RULES  The committee took up SB 10 as the next order of business. SENATOR MILLER moved the adoption of Version K, dated February 27, 1995, as the working version. There being no objection, the motion passed. SENATOR ADAMS questioned the need for SB 10 in light of the Supreme Court ruling. DEAN GUANELI, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, testified. He explained that the Supreme Court reviewed and adopted the Criminal Rules Committee recommendations and further revised them. He noted some people, including John Salemi, felt those changes did not go far enough, especially in the area of criminal discovery rules. Neither the Criminal Rules Committee nor the Supreme Court adopted Mr. Salemi's ideas. In addition, some of the revisions the Supreme Court adopted make it even more difficult for the prosecution to use information acquired from the defense. For example, the Supreme Court included a sentence that reads, "Information obtained by the prosecutors under this rule may be used only for cross examination or rebuttal of defense testimony." Mr. Guaneli explained that the prosecution could not use information acquired by the defense on expert testimony until cross examination or rebuttal occurs, which prevents prosecutors from using such information in structuring cases. A second revision affects expert testimony and requires the defense attorney to write a summary of the expert's testimony for the prosecution. Mr. Guaneli felt the summary to be of little use to the prosecution. He felt these practices were objectionable. MR. GUANELI explained that Version K of CSSB 10 (JUD) repeals and reenacts Rule 16 of the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure instead of setting out the new rule and showing the specific changes, which is a change from previous versions. Number 136 SENATOR ADAMS again questioned the need for SB 10. SENATOR TAYLOR commented that SB 10 would make a subtle, sophisticated policy change and he noted a bill requiring a two- thirds majority vote recently failed on the Senate floor. He commented that unless the committee is successful in achieving something that has a strong working relationship on both sides of the aisle, it would be a waste of time to put it to a full vote. Secondly, he expressed concern that if the bill was passed into law, the Supreme Court might rewrite the rule under the separation of powers. He noted the Supreme Court was gracious in accommodating the legislature by addressing the issue in a timely manner. Number 176 SENATOR MILLER reiterated the concern of adequate support for the measure on the Senate floor. SENATOR TAYLOR stated the bill would be held in committee.