Alaska Employment Law

In U. S. v. Kott & Wehyrauch, (D. Alaska Aug. 1, 2007), Judge Sedwick rejected a criminal defendant’s request to move his trial from Anchorage to Juneau.  Last week, in another criminal matter, Judge Sedwick denied a request to move a trial from Anchorage to Nome.

In U. S. v. Lane, 2007 WL 2462017 (D. Alaska Aug. 27, 2007), Judge Sedwick emphasized the lack of facilities (for the court, court personnel, and counsel) in Nome.  He found:

This court maintains no courthouse in Nome, although it can make arrangements to use the courtroom which is used by the state court.  This court has no chambers in Nome.  Litigants almost never choose to file cases in Nome.  During the past five years, a total of four civil cases have been filed in Nome, and no criminal cases have been filed in Nome.  No case filed in any other city has been moved to Nome for trial during that period of time.  The assigned judge was appointed to this court in October 1992, and cannot recall any case having been tried in Nome.  This court has no employees in Nome, but a state court employee is paid a minimal amount to be available to provide service in Nome if that is required.  The United States Attorney has no office in Nome.  Plaintiff’s counsel has no office in Nome.  The United States Marshal has no employees in Nome.

Transportation of witnesses, and the location of counsel and parties (the defendant was on pretrial release in Anchorage) also supported keeping the matter in Anchorage.

More significantly, though, Judge Sedwick rejected the Alaska Native defendant’s argument that an Anchorage trial would deprive him of a jury from a “fair cross-section” of his community, because Alaska Natives comprise 14.1 % of Alaska residents, but only 6.1 % of MOA residents.  Lane’s argument was not a constitutional one, but one based on the Jury Selection and Service Act. 

The 9th Circuit had previously held that a 7.7 % disparity was not objectionable.  Relying on that and an 11th Circuit opinion that had held that a 10 % disparity was acceptable, Judge Sedwick found that the 8 % disparity in Lane’s case (14.1 % - 6.1 %) was acceptable under the federal Jury Act.  

John Novak represents the government.  Max Garner of Birch Horton represents defendant Lane.