(DOWNLOAD) "James Henry Green v. State Alaska" by Supreme Court of Alaska # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: James Henry Green v. State Alaska
- Author : Supreme Court of Alaska
- Release Date : January 22, 1969
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
DIMOND, Justice. OPINION The Alaska constitution guarantees to an accused in a criminal prosecution the right to a speedy
and public trial "by an impartial jury of twelve." 1 The responsibility of selecting persons to serve on juries is vested
by law in the presiding superior court Judge of each of Alaska's four judicial districts. The selection is made from a list
of the names of residents of the district who are qualified by law for the jury service. Prior to 1969 this list was made
up only of such residents "who voted in the preceding general election." 2 Effective August 3, 1969 the method of selection
was changed so as to include, not only those persons who voted in the preceding general election, but also "all persons who
purchased a resident hunting or fishing license", and "all residents who filed a state income tax return for the preceding
year." 3 Lists of purchasers of resident hunting and fishing licenses and of persons who filed state income tax returns
are to be prepared, respectively, by the state Department of Fish and Game and Department of Revenue. 4 Petitioners were indicted for the crime of kidnapping. They claimed that they were entitled to be tried by a jury selected,
not only from a voting list, but also from a list of purchasers of resident hunting and fishing licenses and those who had
filed state income tax returns, in accordance with the 1969 amendment to AS 09.20.050. When petitioners were informed by the
superior court that the jury would be selected only from a voting list and not in accordance with the amended statute, they
sought and obtained from a Justice of this court a stay of proceedings in the superior court until the question as to the
proper method of selection of a jury could be reviewed by this court. That question is of sufficient, general importance to
merit review under our discretionary authority to pass upon interlocutory matters, because it touches upon a large area of
criminal and civil litigation throughout the state where jury trials are involved. 5