Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court considers whether provisions of the Alaska Victims' Rights Act regulating defense interviews of victims and witnesses violate constitutional fair-trial rights. The court holds that due process protects a criminal defendant's reasonable access to witnesses without unjustified state interference and requires close scrutiny of statutes that burden defense investigations. The opinion addresses mandated warnings, written-consent requirements, no-contact provisions, and restrictions on undisclosed electronic recording.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Alaska Victims' Rights Act provisions regulating defense interviews violated the Alaska Constitution's equal protection clause.
- Whether the provisions violated procedural due process by unjustifiably interfering with a criminal defendant's right to investigate, prepare, and present a defense.
- Whether the statutory advice and written-consent requirements were constitutional as applied to victims, witnesses, sexual-offense cases, and domestic-violence cases.
- Whether the statutory no-contact provision could constitutionally bar defense representatives from recontacting witnesses who had declined contact.
- Whether the statutory prohibition on undisclosed electronic recording of interviews was constitutional.
Holdings
- The Act was not vulnerable to an equal-protection challenge under the Alaska Constitution because the State is not a person or similarly situated individual for purposes of the asserted comparison.
- Statutes that trench on criminal defendants' fair-trial rights must serve important interests, and the interests served must be sufficiently weighty to justify the limitations imposed; minimal rationality alone is insufficient.
- Except as to victims of sexual offenses and domestic violence crimes, the statutory requirements that defense representatives advise interviewees that they need not talk and may have a prosecutor present were unconstitutional. The written-consent requirement for interviews in sexual-offense cases was unconstitutional.
- The statutory no-contact provision was unconstitutional as applied to witnesses because it barred defense representatives from recontacting witnesses and unjustifiably impeded defense investigations. The provision remained undisturbed as to victims.
- The statutory ban on undisclosed electronic recording by defense representatives was unconstitutional because it unduly interfered with a defendant's right to prepare and present a defense.
Key quotations
“This right includes the right to reasonable access to witnesses without unjustified state interference.” (608)
“Here it is sufficient to hold that statutes that trench on fair trial rights must, at a minimum, have as their purpose the protection of important interests.” (609-610)
“Witnesses, particularly eye witnesses, to a crime are the property of neither the prosecution nor the defense. Both sides have an equal right, and should have an equal opportunity, to interview them.” (617)
“Because they present a distinct risk of suppressing sources of evidence that otherwise would be available to defendants, they are inconsistent with procedural due process.” (624)
Factual background
The challenged provisions regulated criminal defense representatives' pretrial interviews of victims and witnesses. They required specified warnings, written consent for interviews in sexual-offense cases, compliance with no-contact requests, and consent before electronic recording. The superior court found that these requirements substantially impeded defense investigations, particularly in rural Alaska and in telephone interviews, while the State asserted interests in protecting victims and witnesses from harassment, intimidation, and privacy violations.
Procedural history
Criminal defense attorneys and an investigator brought a constitutional challenge to provisions of Alaska's Victims' Rights Act regulating defense interviews of victims and witnesses. After a bench trial, the superior court upheld certain advice and no-contact provisions but struck down written-consent and recording restrictions, denied attorney's fees, and entered final judgment. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for an award of attorney's fees and costs.
Remand instructions
The superior court was directed to determine and award appropriate attorney's fees and costs because Murtagh was the prevailing party.