ALASKA COURT RULES

Defender Agency, Attorney General’s Office, Department of Public Safety, and Department of Corrections, may approve systems allowing judges to provide for the appearance by a defendant at certain criminal proceedings by way of contemporaneous two-way videoconference equipment in lieu of the physical presence of the defendant in the courtroom. Any approved system must provide for a procedure by which the defendant may confer with the defendant’s attorney in private. in (b) In those court locations in which an approved system is in place, in-custody defendants shall appear by way of contemporaneous two-way videoconference for arraignment, pleas, and non-evidentiary bail reviews traffic and misdemeanor cases; and initial appearance hearings, non- evidentiary bail reviews, and not guilty plea arraignments in felony cases, unless otherwise ordered for cause stated by the presiding judge. With the defendant’s consent, sentencings two-way may be done by way of contemporaneous videoconference cases. Notwithstanding Criminal Rule 38(a)(2), the court may order a defendant two-way videoconference at any other hearings. and misdemeanor contemporaneous appear traffic by in to In any particular case, the trial court may order that the defendant be transported to court for court proceedings if the trial the defendant’s rights would be prejudiced by use of the system. judge finds that (c) Facsimile telecopy orders issued in proceedings conducted under this rule are acceptable as originals for the purposes of release or detention by correctional officers. (d) Nothing in this rule diminishes any other existing right of a criminal defendant. (Added by SCO 719 effective August 1, 1986; amended by SCO 863 effective July 15, 1988; and by SCO 1951 nunc pro tunc July 9, 2019) Note: Chapter 4, FSSLA 2019 (HB 49) enacted a number of changes relating to criminal procedure. Sections 136 and 137 of the Act amended paragraphs (a) and (b) to replace “television” two-way videoconference.” Section 137 also added a provision that the court may order the defendant to appear by contemporaneous two-way videoconference at any other hearing. This rule change is adopted for the sole reason that the legislature has mandated the amendment. “contemporaneous with