Opinion ID: 2625111
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Review of Due Process Fair Trial Claims

Text: The State misunderstands the concept of due process with respect to defense investigative rights. It contends that our substantive due process jurisprudence applies and that a statute may be struck down as violating due process only when it has no reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. [18] The State argues that since all of the provisions of the act have some relationship to a proper objective, the superior court's decision holding certain provisions unconstitutional must be reversed. But the State has confused substantive due process claims with claims that due process guarantees of a fair trial have been violated. State practices, including statutes, that interfere with fair trial rights do not pass constitutional muster merely because they are minimally rational. [19] The subject of criminal procedure, which in a broad sense includes pretrial discovery and investigative practices as well as the conduct of court proceedings, is one in which this court has special responsibilities. The rights of those accused of crime are largely constitutionally based. These rights include, as Judge Tan noted, not only the due process guarantee, [20] but also numerous specific rights that are necessary to ensure a fair trial. These include the right not to be placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense, [21] the privilege against self-incrimination, [22] the right to a speedy and public trial, [23] the right to trial by jury, [24] the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him, [25] the right to bail, [26] the right of confrontation, [27] the right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, [28] and the right to effective assistance of counsel. [29] It is the obligation of the courts to interpret these provisions so that they may be applied in particular cases and to ensure that the rights they provide are not infringed by any form of state action. Under Alaska's constitutional structure of government, `the judicial branch . . . has the constitutionally mandated duty to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Alaska Constitution, including compliance by the legislature.' [30] In addition, the Alaska Constitution vests in this court the power to make and promulgate rules governing practice and procedure in civil and criminal cases. [31] We have exercised this authority to regulate pretrial discovery in criminal cases. In particular, a rule promulgated by this court prohibits both prosecution and defense representatives from advising witnesses to refrain from discussing a case with opposing representatives or otherwise imped[ing] opposing counsel's investigation of the case. [32] In addition, this court has inherent authority to regulate the conduct of attorneys, including the authority to define ethical norms and provide for attorney discipline. [33] This discussion of the court's responsibility concerning fair trial rights does not mean that the legislature is powerless to act in the area. But our responsibility requires that statutes that are claimed to infringe fair trial rights be closely scrutinized. Unlike in equal protection cases, we have not formulated a detailed method of analysis by which such claims may be judged. [34] Nor do we do so comprehensively in this case. 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. We must ask in each case whether the interests served by a statute are of sufficient weight to justify the limitations imposed on fair trial rights. [35] In striking this balance we will consider not only the relative strength of the purpose underlying the statute but also the likelihood that the statute will achieve its purpose and whether the purpose can be achieved in another way that does not impede fair trial rights. With these observations in mind, we proceed to examine the provisions of the Victims' Rights Act at issue in this case. The provisions can be discussed in three categories. These categories encompass provisions that