NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Attorney General's Office (AGO)

Public Defender Department (PDD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

The bill makes it a petty misdemeanor for a District Attorney or anyone appointed by them to discuss pending criminal cases with anyone outside of the District Attorneys Office.

Significant Issues

This bill raises free speech and equal protection issues.

CONFLICT/DUPLICATION/COMPANIONSHIP/RELATIONSHIP

The Court rules appear to already address this issue. Ethical standards of conduct exist in the form of Rule 16-306, and 16-308 for prosecutors when making public statements. Rule 16-306 (A) (B) &(C) define an improper extrajudicial statement, how to determine the propriety of a statement, and what are permissible statements. The Judiciary may impose restrictions on the speech of an attorney in particular circumstances. The Court has the power of either civil or criminal contempt for a violation of the Court's order.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The Attorney General's Office raises the following issues:

a) The bill restricts certain people in exercising their freedom of speech. In court proceedings this is often done in the context of juvenile cases (psychological evaluations) abuse and neglect hearings (removal from the home) and mental disability proceedings. It is also done in high publicity cases involving criminal defendants. In placing these restrictions the courts and the legislature have typically balanced the right to free speech against a persons right to a fair trial or hearing, and the right of the public's access to public information. The present bill does not reflect such a balance.

b) The bill does not allow certain persons to exercise their free speech because they work in a district attorney's office. Persons who are in possession of the same information but do not work in the district attorney's office can say the same thing as the district attorney worker but will not be subject to the same criminal sanction. This raises equal protection issues.

c) Continuing legal education seminars and workshops sponsored by prosecutors from the District Attorneys Office and the Attorney General's Office routinely share information about pending criminal cases. This is particularly true regarding criminal cases that are on appeal. The bill as worded could prevent the discussion of this information.

FAR/lrs