On Thursday, the Alaska Supreme Court will consider two proposed rules that would require lawyers in the state to disclose evidence that suggests a person has been wrongly accused or convicted of a crime.
State prosecutors and defense lawyers in Alaska are not explicitly required to turn over exculpatory evidence - facts that suggest a defendant or convicted criminal is innocent.
Over the past four years, the Alaska Bar Association has called on the court system to add rules 3.8 and 5.8 to the Alaska Bar Rules, which govern lawyers in the state. The American Bar Association has promoted similar state-level rules around the country."This is designed to encourage lawyers to think about the consequences of not doing anything," said Steve Van Goor, counsel for the Alaska Bar Association. "When you're in a position to report evidence and don't, an innocent person sits in prison."
Van Goor said the primary motivation behind the proposed rule is the prevalence of cases around the country in which people have been exonerated by new evidence.
The change of policy here is something of a cautionary step, Van Goor said, because cases where exculpatory evidence becomes known after a trial are few and far between. He said there is no immediate example of someone in Alaska who was found entirely innocent after the introduction of DNA evidence.
Even with Alaska's track record and a series of safeguards already built into state law and rules, past wrongful convictions give an idea why there is a movement to expand protections and how human error sometimes prevents justice.
One night in 1994, police found a woman drunk and in disarray, wandering around a city park in the Southeast Alaska community of Petersburg.
She claimed she was raped in the park, and the man she accused was convicted by a jury and sentenced to five years. But the jury was not provided key evidence that contradicted her story, even though the prosecutor knew it existed.
When the Superior Court learned of the previously-unknown facts in 1997, the conviction was overturned, and the state dismissed all charges in 2000.
Even that case, however unfortunate for the defendant, illustrates some of the protections already built into the system at work, said John Skidmore. Skidmore is director of the criminal division of the Alaska Department of Law. He oversees all of the state's prosecutors.
Skidmore said even though human error led to an incorrect result in the initial trial, because of the the appellate courts, the case was handled properly in the end.
"Fortunately, we've been doing a good job," he said. "To my knowledge, there's been no case in which someone was wrongfully convicted beyond the trial court level. The Appellate Court has been an appropriate check."
The Department of Law supports the proposed rule changes, though if enacted by the Supreme Court, Skidmore said it raises questions of how prosecutors will manage their workload.
Still, "it's another safeguard to make sure innocent people aren't convicted, and when they are, that it's corrected," Skidmore said. "It's good for everyone."
Even though there are no specific Alaska examples of a conviction being overturned in light of exculpatory evidence after the appeals process played out, there are recent examples here and in the Lower 48 of prosecutors fighting the release of important evidence that could have swayed a jury.
Former Alaska prosecutor Jay Gullufsen was suspended in July for withholding evidence in the murder trial of Jimmy Eacker, who was initially convicted of first degree murder for the brutal killing of a Seward woman. When new DNA evidence was presented in court, showing the DNA of another man in the victim's body, Eacker pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
In Austin, Texas, Michael Morton returned home one day in 1986 to find his wife had been brutally murdered in their bed. He was wrongfully convicted of the crime and served 25 years in prison, in part because a prosecutor fought to prevent the DNA testing that eventually exonerated him of the crime.
That type of case, combined with the lack of incentive or risk of consequence for the state to disclose exculpatory evidence in every case, is why advocates like Bill Oberly support the new rule.
"I don't think anyone in Alaska, or the United States, can deny that wrongful convictions happen," said Bill Oberly, executive director of the Alaska Innocence Project. "We have to correct those, or our justice system is a sham."The Thursday work session of the Supreme Court will be led by the rules committee, composed of people from across the legal community. The session is closed to the public.