CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2025)
James Blair
In Weston v. State, 574 P.3d 1173 (Alaska 2025), the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that when a legal intern’s participation in a criminal defense complies with Alaska Bar Rule 44 and a licensed attorney supervises the intern, a criminal defendant’s right to counsel is not infringed. (Id. at 1180). In a criminal defendant’s trial, a legal intern gave the defendant’s opening statement and cross-examined a witness. (Id. at 1174). The legal intern was supervised by an attorney while participating. (Id.). After the defendant was convicted, he appealed and argued that, because he had not consented to the legal intern’s participation in his defense, he had been deprived of his right to counsel under the Alaska Constitution and the United States Constitution. (Id. at 1175). The Court of Appeals of Alaska disagreed reasoning that the Supreme Court of Alaska, in promulgating Bar Rule 44, has spoken on the requirements that an intern must meet to practice law in Alaska. (Id. at 1178). As a result of those requirements being met in the case, including attorney supervision, no violation existed. (Id.). Additionally, the presence of a licensed attorney at all times independently satisfied the defendant’s right to counsel, irrespective of the intern’s participation. (Id. at 1179–80). The court additionally noted that an indigent criminal defendant has no right to choose his court-appointed attorney, and thus the defendant had no right to exclude the intern. (Id. at 1180). Because the intern’s participation satisfied Rule 44 and an attorney supervised, the criminal defendant’s right to counsel was not violated. (Id.).
