Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Judiciary committee on January 7. Good morning, Wednesday. And we're now turning to page five. We're gonna have a walk through and then some witness testimony. I'll turn it over to Michelle Thank you very much for being here.

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So for the record, Michelle Child's Office on Conservative Counsel, and we're taking a look at H5 as introduced. And I want to start out just reminding folks about the legislature amending the court rules. As you well know, this is something that really is generally in the purview of the court. However, the generals and leaders have clear authority to amend and modify the court rules. And it is done on occasion, but not frequently. We try to respect the separation of the branches. And there's a whole process. And I know you have the chair of judicial rules here. And there is a process going through the committee process and many rules that way. But you do, on occasion, amend the court rules via legislation, and that is valid. I think yesterday when the topic of this bill came up and Tom and I were like, I think you said something like, wait, didn't you just do something on that? Was like, yeah, we could do that. And it was two years ago is that this committee considered, I think it was S-one 190, and actually did amend this same rule of evidence with regard to hearsay, but it was expanding it to certain types of offenses. And so right now, it's focused on sexually based offenses, or it was previously. And then you added the eligibility for the exception to applying cases where there was cruelty to a child that involved serious bodily injury. So some of y'all might remember that. So good memory. I just had to look it up myself to remind myself what y'all did. So what this is doing is you'll see in section one, page one, it's amending rule 804A four a of the Vermont rules of evidence. And this is having to do with hearsay. And just as a little reminder, I know we've talked about this before, but hearsay is essentially an out of court statement that is used as an offered as evidence to prove the truth of whatever it is that's that it asserts. So you kinda think of it as kind of like, you know, like a secondhand evidence, right, coming from somebody else. Generally, hearsay is not permitted to be introduced because essentially that means that that person who uttered that statement is not available to be questioned or to be present in court. And so then it's difficult to be able to ascertain the truthfulness of that particular statement because that person is not available. However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. One, was actually I was talking to my partner at dinner last night. He's like, are doing tomorrow? And so this show's coming up. And he said, well, what's an exception? He said, well, there's the excited utterance. Right? The exception. Right? He's like, well, give me an example. And I said, okay. I walk in from work and you're lying on the kitchen floor with a knife in you and you say, so and so did it. And that's an excited utterance, is that something like that may be used and be offered as evidence. But otherwise, generally, hearsay statements are not permitted, but there's all kinds of different exceptions for when you can bring in certain evidence. This rule specifically is having to do with the creation of a hearsay exception when you have a victim. And currently it applies to victims who are 12 years old or under, who are victims of and if you look at the page two in subdivision one, there's kind of like the I say, starting like and I let me just also go back to this earlier discussion about changing language. I don't find court rules always to be the easiest to read. I don't because those have been crafted by practitioners who that's not what I do. I draft legislative language. I will do whatever you want to do. You are the clients. But I try to take a light touch to accomplish your substantive goals. If you are amending a court rule, the way that they draft and the terms that they use may not be what you see in legislation. And to me, that's Okay. I don't want to overstep with regard to the court rules, is the way that I would take that. So I'm just trying to head off this conversation of, Oh, this rule is really hard to read.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: If

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was going to write this fresh, I wouldn't write it like that. But I'm not the one generally responsible for writing the rules. And I don't know whether or not Representative Rachelson wants to, but it looks like he might want to say something, but

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I've been on the judicial rules committee for a lot of years, and we do urge them when we get rules in front of us, we say, this doesn't make any sense. I think who knows when this rule was written. But I know over the last eleven years, we've really pushed for rules to make more sense and so have the rule committees because there's so much pro bono, not pro bono, pro se litigants, people representing themselves that need access to the rules. So there really has been a push to try to make them. But I'm not saying that we should do that.

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just wanted to kind of

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: get out

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: front of that and just let you know is I take a light touch. That's why you'll see in Subdivision 1, boy, that's a long one, is that

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, I'm sorry.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So my question is more when you're giving the background, to back up the legislature's role and not overstepping our bounds in when we do recommend for us. So I'm wondering if there's more guidance anywhere about when is it appropriate for the legislature to do that, and when is that overstepping? Because it feels very murky to me, to tell you the truth, and it's important to know if there are any bright ones.

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm a product of who trained me. So I was very lucky that when I came to counsel, I was mentored by a gentleman, Charlie Bristow, who Representative Koch, you will remember very well. He had been a district court judge prior to coming to Ledge Council. And the way that I was taught was we can do this. And I actually, I think within my first couple of years, did or a few years did the amendment to rule three that Judge Trevall was talking about recently back in the early aughts. And so on certain matters, the general assembly will say, we have a clear policy position on this, and we want to dictate the policy on this. Eric and I's advice to everyone over the last twenty five plus years has been you have the right to do it, but it should be used infrequently, just out of respect for separation of the branches. The fact that they do have a process which the legislature has a role in through the Joint Committee on Judicial Rules of commenting on rules. And there's this dialogue constantly going on between the rules committee, between the general assembly and the court about things, and we'd like to see this. It's not like the rules committee frequently objects to rules. It's more of a conversation, those types of things. So we like to keep the relationship collaborative. I don't know, and I'm sure that probably some of the witnesses can talk to you about what has gone on with the rules of evidence committee that that is responsible for proposing changes to the rules and why this has has or has not been done. I think it'll become pretty quickly evident to you. Is a controversial issue. It's really just a policy issue. There's not much for me to do on this. And it's going to be a policy decision for you because essentially what this boils down to is right now there is exception in the rules for certain statements, hearsay statements of a child 12 or under. So out of court statement under if the child is a putative victim of certain sexually based offenses or cruelty to a child involving serious bodily injury, that you could bring those statements in and offer them as evidence. All this proposal is doing, and when I say all, I realize it's a big change, but all it's doing is changing that age from 12 and under to also it would expand it so that it would also include kids who are 13 to 15 years old. So it would be the 16. So you're moving like, right now, even though it says 12 and under, it's really, like, under 13, and you're changing it to 16. So you're just adding a few more years there. And that's that's what this does. And then the witnesses, and you've got a lot of folks who are going come, they're going to have a variety of positions as to why or why not you should do something like this. And it's just going be a policy decision for you. I will just note on there that there are you see, and again, I understand difficulty, but in this particular rule, the rule does provide some things there to assure credibility because the issue is, is the statement credible? And so the rule provides that the statements must not have been made in preparation for a legal proceeding. And if a criminal or delinquency proceeding has been initiated, the statements must have been made prior to the defendant's initial appearance. The child must be available to testify in court. There are specific there are other rules that address the issue of kind of protection of the child and being able to do out of you know, them kind of outside the the the courtroom and things to be reported and and have support systems. And I'm sure some of the survivor organizations can talk to you about. The time, content, and circumstances of the statements must provide substantial indicia of trustworthiness. So there's certain kind of things to say, okay, this is not something hearsay normally wouldn't be able to be brought in. Here we're talking about a child, a child who, and I'm sure here they'll have lots of instances where they think it's to explain to you why it's important, it could be a child speaks to a teacher about some abuse that they have suffered. Right. And that they want to bring in that statement that was made to the teacher or other trusted adult. Right. That was made at that time. And they want to bring that in. And then the folks are just going to talk to you about why they think it should either be you should either expand it to the 13 through 15 year olds or whether or not you should keep it limited to the 12 and under.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. Any questions? This part? Yeah. I think the only point and it may have been asked, but I just didn't understand. So do we know if there was an attempt to do this same change through the official rules process?

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. And I'm sure other people can speak to that specifically. I will tell you that some version of this legislation has been kicking around for a long time.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: In trying to change it from the legislatives from this way, not

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And that usually, that happens, it's because it's not making it through the Rules Committee. Okay. But I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No. That's

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would leave it to someone. You have, a witness and somebody who's in from the Rules of Veterans Committee come and talk to you about it, and about industry around that. Great. Thanks. Other

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: questions for Chuck? Not seeing me, we'll have Jennifer Pullman, who is joining us by Zoom, can weigh in. Thank you for Zooming in and over to you if you can introduce yourself for the record.

[Jennifer Pullman (Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Thank you and Happy New Year and welcome back. My name is Jennifer Pullman. For the record, I'm the director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. And I wish I could be with you today, but I'm certainly sure that representative Malay and Oliver are really happy that I'm not sitting there with my double pink eye, as you can tell. So I'm keeping you all holding you all harmless. So again, would love to be there in person, but just trying to be a little respectful. The conversation was really helpful, and I'm really grateful to be here on this bill, I will say, because I have been a part of this conversation since way back in 02/2006. So I think I've been here a little bit too long, but I can provide some background. And again, I appreciate Attorney Child's explanation. As far as the rules, I just want to get that piece out of the way before I testify. I did ask this of the Rules Committee back in the mid twenty ten's and what I was told by the chair was that the legislature made these changes back in 2005, 2006. They should fix it. So I was not. I raised the issues. I was told go back to you all, and so I've been knocking at your door ever since on 804A and then earlier on '15. Michelle, Attorney Childs did a great job of kind of bringing you back to where we were two years ago and really want to again thank you for your amazing work to recognize that children who've been the victims of serious physical abuse experience trauma as well, and we're entitled to the same protections, bringing us in line with the majority of states in terms of how they interpret 804A. During that conversation in 2024, we did, and it was raised by representative Arsenault that, you know, why why is that the order disparity? Because in depositions, we provide protections for, young people who are 16. But for our hearsay exceptions, it's 12 and under. So why is there that disparity? And we did get to speaking back in 2024 as to why it seems that the brain science that we spend so much time speaking about with young people who cause harm is not reflected in our rules necessarily when it comes to protections for young people who report harm. And at the time, this came up at the very end of the session, and it was that kind of mad scramble, and I think we all were understanding that to bring that piece in and bring it back to the Senate just didn't make sense, but that we would revisit it. So it's that conversation that happened in this committee that resulted in, and again, this is my recollection, resulted in H5 coming forward so that we could have a little bit more time to think about. Does that make any sense? And how can we defend that the brain science goes only one way when we think about how we provide additional protection and support for people who have young people who have caused harm, but we aren't thinking about it in terms of people who've been victimized. Victimized. So that is how we came to age five, and I'm really grateful again to be able to have this conversation. And I think that's just an unanswered piece that I can't figure out. You know, in some ways, based on what I would consider archaic notions of young people and children, and we can't again think about it only going one way. I want to just sort of underscore what Attorney Charles was saying in terms of 804A has a bunch of threshold requirements before these statements come in that are not always reflected in all the hearsay exceptions. So again, it's making sure that, most importantly, I think for the concerns that could be raised, that the child is available to testify. And in fact, as you see on page three, the child can actually be forced to testify. And I think that's a really important piece when we think about reliability, when we think about veracity. We, in 804A, make sure that that trial effect, that the jury can actually assess the credibility of these statements for their own selves. And that again is unique in terms of some of the other hearsay exceptions. So we're bringing those people forward. We're making sure that they're available and that cross examination absolutely is available to the person who's been accused. So I really want to underscore those pieces. You know, I'm not here to revisit the policy behind 804A because it's well established. 40 other states have the same, exact exception. And, I think again, it's really I don't. I'll never use the word simple because I've been, I've learned how that works for me, But it really is about should children who are 13 and fifth 13 through 15 get the same protection that somebody who's 12 years and three seventy four days gets. When they report to their teacher, this happened to me, how can we justify the difference of literally a couple of days in terms of what kind of additional support that that child may get in terms of reflecting what we tell our kids all the time. Find a trusted adult. If something happens to you, tell a trusted adult. But somehow, based on the way things are written right now, what happens when you tell that trusted adult changes if you are 12 years and three seventy four days versus if you are 13 years old. If a child is brave enough to come forward and find that trusted adult, I think it's incredibly important to acknowledge that, especially as you all know, you've been on this committee, most of you for a long time. These crimes are not reported. They are underreported. And I don't know if any of you have kids. I do. I have three that are in those formidable years and 13 and 15 year olds. They're not really the most forthcoming. So I really want to think about that, and I also want to just address an aside on this issue, which is that I've heard many times that. And it almost can seem blaming. Well, kids are different nowadays. They mature earlier. You know, they they see so many things in it. It's problematic for me to hear that because, speaking as a parent and as a professional, yes, that's true. Things are not the way they used to be. But it cuts differently because our children are more vulnerable than they ever were before. Adolescents see things that they should never see and they are more vulnerable. So I don't understand why we wouldn't extend the same protections for 13 to 15 year olds that exist for those who are 12 and under. It makes sense. It's an important tool for prosecutors, as you'll hear from my colleagues at the AG's office and at the Department of States Attorneys and Sheriffs, but it's not a blunt tool. It's not just here's another way you can, you know, go after somebody. It's not a blunt tool. It's very specific and there are several areas that you have to clear and you see that on page three before this can even be utilized and then still the jury, the judge are able to weigh in on those pieces. So I think for me, again, I'm not ever going to say simple, but I'm going to say it really boils down to do our children who are 16 deserve the same ability to have a disclosure that is brought to somebody that they trust forward in the same way that somebody who is 12 does. So for me, until I can understand the reason and the rationale behind the disparity to whether or not it continues to work, especially in terms of what Vermont has done as a leader in our state in terms of how we respond to children who've caused harm, it doesn't make sense. So I don't know if anybody can make it make sense, but for me I'm really grateful that we're able to have this conversation and I hope that it results in us thinking about young people in a different way who've been traumatized.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So Can you play out a scenario for us of how this action works in court including, and maybe this is more a question for the state's attorney or the AT's office, just a scenario and how it works through the court and how the different items on page three kind of play out as well, if that's possible, just to kind of make this a little more concrete for us.

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Well,

[Jennifer Pullman (Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: I would really defer to my colleagues at the agent's office because I can't say that I've practiced in this area in Vermont. So I really want to say that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's fine. Yeah, we'll definitely ask you that. Questions? I see Karen and Barbara.

[Charlie Listerman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Thank you, Jennifer, for being here and sharing this background information on this. One of the pieces that you said is that 40 other states have this exception. Is it this exact exception with the 16 or you meant in general allowing an exception?

[Jennifer Pullman (Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Yes, in general. And I'm happy to provide the compendium that I have that gives the specifics. I will certainly be transparent in that we would be going in a different direction in terms of increasing the age would be higher than other states. But again, I think for me, that is in keeping with how we've also provided an example and a model for other states in terms of how we treat youth who have caused harm. So I will not say the age range is reflective, but I'm happy to send that on to Nate if that would be helpful.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Thank you. Jen, my question is this: I am wondering why 16. We have all these different ages that youth have privileges or don't have privileges. Is 16 sort of not extending it to 18 because that seems too big? But brain development wise, there's support for like, when you were saying that, like, why should somebody who's 12 get the protection, but somebody who's 13 not? And then I'm thinking, okay, somebody who's 15 and three sixty four days, yes. But, like, it feels like it's arbitrary at that cutoff too to me.

[Jennifer Pullman (Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Well, I do agree. I think what we talked about in 2024 is why can't we at least have 804A mirror the protection and the age limitation in Rule 15 that provides certain protections for victims and depositions, which is the 16 piece. So I've been here long enough to take small steps. And for me, it doesn't make sense to at least have look at how Rule 15 provides that protection and depots for those who are 16. But yeah, we have a different piece for 804A. And like all things, and I think I heard, know, a representative Goslant speaking about this earlier on a different issue is like we kind of make changes piecemeal, and then it's this opportunity to kind of bring things into conformance as we look at the larger picture. And I think this is just one of those ones that got changed along the way or didn't get changed, and now we're looking at it. Well, it's interesting.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Because I was just thinking about how that fits in the phrase of the age and what we know about But that makes sense. I know we'd love to do incremental things here.

[Jennifer Pullman (Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: And not to throw something on the table that'll land like a dead fish, but they are revisiting the brain science now for young people as well, and thinking maybe 25 was too young. So I'm just hoping that we can have 804A and 15 make sense together.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: That's helpful to have that as a sort of companion matchup,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: knowing where you're coming from. So thank you. Other questions for Michelle's question?

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I was just going to add a little something because if that's if it's helpful. So when Jen was mentioning earlier actions by the general assembly around this particular section, so in 2009, in Act one, there was a very big omnibus bill on Vermont's sexual abuse response system. And part of that was an amendment to rule eight zero four, a moving it from 10 and under to 12 and under. So that was the last kind of change looking at that. I tracked it back. There was an amendment by the legislature in '93, that one was adding the folks. It would just used to be with children, and then that was adding folks who have I'm not going to use the term that was used at the time, but people with mental illness or disabilities. Correct. And so that was the change before that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That was in 'ninety three?

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was in 'ninety three. What was it due

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: before that one or after that one?

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 2009, it was Act I.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It was like a big bill.

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It was a big bill. Don't know if y'all there was a very sad, high profile murder of a teenage girl in Randolph, Brooke Bennett. Was that that? And the general assembly senate judiciary along with Maxine from house judiciary held a series of hearings and did a they did a whole investigation. I wrote a big report based on that, and there was a long list of recommendations, which eventually became as the first thing the legislature did when it came back in January 2009 was Act one. And this was a part of that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And that was '10 and '12.

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was changing it from '10 and under to 12 and under.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So this is not exactly, isn't related, my question isn't related to the age component of this, but if it was 1993 that the addition of a person with mental illness, has there been any further thought about the appropriateness of that exception? Part of the reason I ask is we're gonna have a witness in tomorrow who I think is going to be questioning the appropriateness or not exactly yet, but whether an individual with mental illness should have the same exclusion or if there should be other components to that. Any comment on that, Jenna?

[Jennifer Pullman (Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: I do know at the hearing that I was at before the Rules Committee that that had come up. That was the main reason that they were taking up the issue. And there was a desire to change the terminology. But what was raised by other witnesses was that this would, in keeping with some of the earlier pieces that Attorney Child was speaking about on an earlier bill, there's a lot of case law, and so they decided at that point that I was there for it not to revisit the terminology because practitioners were relying upon that definition. So I don't know if that answers your question, and I don't know. I'm sure that Will Dwight will have more informed perspective. But that was the only piece that I was privy to. And again, it was concerns about practitioners' reliance upon definitions.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. All right, thanks. Other questions? I do not see many. I see that Dominica is here, the chief of the criminal division. I think you have one. Oh, I'm sorry, there is one.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: No, I see there.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay, sorry, I was a little quick.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: That's okay. Jen, can you talk a little bit about how I mean, you've certainly hinted at it, but can you say more explicitly why this exception, how it benefits, how it helps victims, young victims of these types of crimes.

[Jennifer Pullman (Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Certainly. I think, again, as this committee knows, coming forward and making that report is really, really challenging for any young person, especially. But unlike what people expect when they watch, let's say, know, SVU or something else on TV, physical evidence generally is not there. And So what happens is we place our young people in a position where they are. You know it is that. What they said versus what the person who is accused said, and it's an extremely intimidating environment for a young person who doesn't have counsel who doesn't have counsel. Just to be clear, you know, prosecution represents the state. They don't have counsel. The accused does, and it creates a really incredibly scary imbalance for a young person. And so if that young person has been courageous enough to say, not only come forward and say this happened to me, but they went to a trusted adult who oftentimes is a mandated reporter, do we require them to make that report, But yet they can't necessarily testify if it's a 13 or 15 year old. So it just is incongruous to me. And to have that young person have to go through this process alone when they've already shared that information. We're asking young people to do the impossible.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And given the way the process generally unfolds, is it fair to say that without this type of protection or exception, they could be asked to share the details of what happened many times.

[Jennifer Pullman (Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Well, yes. And to be honest, 804A still does allow for that to happen. We're not taking away anybody's confrontation rights. That young person can still be required to testify. I think that's really important, to understand is that we still are requiring that young person to be available. And by order of the court, They can have to appear, so this is not again somebody coming in. It really just helps to underscore, what a prosecutor can do and present as a potential case. You all know that 98% of cases resolve in a plea regardless. If it does is about that young person. And not about the fact that they went to their teacher. Then. It creates again a little significant disparity. And I think it's incredibly important if we do want to hold people accountable, we do want to reflect brain science, and we do want to recognize the different ways that we do that otherwise, That we provide at least some additional piece to help these cases move forward and help there to be a more a conversation that doesn't put young people. At you know, on that front line of having to move this all by themselves.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much, Jen. We will join us.

[Jennifer Pullman (Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Thank you. Hope to see you all soon.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes. Yes, get well. Thank you for being here. I hope it wasn't too snow of a trip across the hill.

[Charlie Listerman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: No, it's perfect. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Hi, everyone.

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: My name is Domenico Padula, of the criminal division for the Vermont attorney general's office. I've been a prosecutor for almost twenty years, the last five here in Vermont in the position that I currently am in. I've been a prosecutor, so I prosecuted all kinds of cases. My specialty, however, is in child sexual assault cases, sexual assault cases, homicide and violent felonies. So I'm very happy to be here to testify on behalf of this bill. The attorney general's office supports it. And in hearing Jen talk about just some of the nuances and some of the difficulties of prosecuting these kinds of cases, She really hit the nail on the head with a number of them. And I think what's kind of important when looking at this and reiterating what everyone else has already said, the 12 and under is what we currently have. It's been extremely helpful. Expanding this to the 13, 14 and 15 will be incredibly helpful for prosecuting those crimes that also happen in that age group. I think you have to kind of think about what it means in terms of and I heard Jen talk about we talk a lot about children who cause harm, and we're talking about defendants who commit these kinds of crimes or other crimes, and how careful we are about the process and how to protect them. Everything from where it is filed to who can hear it so that the stigma does not get placed in a place where you can't outgrow it or you can't learn from it. And we should. Those are all important conversations that recognize a number of issues that happen when you're talking about criminal behavior and youth. I think we have to remember, rightly so, that the burden in criminal is the highest burden under the law, and that is beyond a reasonable doubt. And it is way up here. And it never waivers. That is always the standard prosecutors must hit, whether it's a six year old saying that something happened or a 60 year old saying something happened. That line never moves. So the law also tells us that, yes, this is the line. This is what you have to prove. It doesn't tell us the tools that it tells us the tools that we need to get there, not how to get there. And this piece of legislation is part of the tools that help us bridge that gap from how do we meet that standard that never changes with victims who are particularly vulnerable, particularly susceptible to a whole bunch of influences beyond their control. How do we assist the trier, in fact, of getting a clearer picture of what may have happened? And that's all this is. This allows prosecutors to use different pieces of evidence to kind of If you think of here's where the burden of proof is and think of it like a ladder, it's another rung for us to be able to put so that it sees if we can get to that place. And that place will be decided by the trier of fact, whether it's a judge, whether it's a jury. That's what we're asking. When you deal with these kinds of cases, testimony is evidence. And as Jen was saying, in the world of SVU and those kinds of things, physical evidence kind of rules. It's something you can see. It's something you can touch. It's something no one questions whether you have a cut because I can see it. No one questions whether you had your handbag stolen because it was there and now it's not there. No one questions those kinds of things because there are physical things that we can see and do that help us to get to that bar that we need to get to. When you're dealing with a crime that in and of itself is a crime of silence. It's a crime of power dynamic. It's a crime that you have the unique perspective that the abuser gets to control that world almost exclusively, depending on who their victim is. And that means that their whole world is decided by this one individual and they're larger than life. They have either threatened them or they love them and they use that love against them. So they are in this cycle of most likely a lot of this happens with people who they know or close family friends and relatives, trusted people in their lives. So these are established things. And when I'm talking here, I'm talking in broad generalities and there's exceptions to the exceptions of everything. So if I refer to a victim as a girl, that doesn't mean that there aren't victims across all spectrums of that, but just for ease of talking, just in those realms. But you have these victims who their coping mechanisms are secrecy, hiding, masking, belittling. How they survive it is all the things that a defense attorney is going to point out of all the reasons why you can't believe them. And that's by design by the abuser. And those are things that when you hear the he said, she said, It is a misnomer. He never says anything. By statute, by law, he has the right to say nothing throughout the entire process. She must always say. And that is a really stark difference between how we handle and how oppressive the judicial system can be to a victim that has to work through that. That 10 year old, while there are certain protections and charging where we mask names and we do those kinds of things, at some point, if we're at trial, they will take the stand and they will have to talk about the most fearful, painful, saddest part of their life. And everyone's going to be staring at them. Jurors, the gallery. It's not cleared. It is a public place. So when you think about how we really do protect defendants moving through this process as much as we can, I think it's really important, and I thank this committee for taking a look at how we can support victims moving through this process? That by design, and I'm not saying we shouldn't always have that because we should always have that. Cannot change those things. But it's one of those things where I am so grateful that you're looking at the things that you can change in recognition of the things that we can't. When we talk about those kinds of plea deals or we talk about those kind of plea arrangements, sometimes it really does come down to what's the evidence. What do you have? What would make somebody on the other side of that really terrified that, oh my gosh, it's not just her, this 10 year old, this 12 year old saying something, is it other things? And that will matter. Jenna is also right and that I don't have a client. That is a very huge distinction between prosecution and defense attorneys. Defense attorneys have clients. They control everything. I don't. I have the power to compel testimony. I have the power to subpoena people in and say, you have to do this. It is at the discretion to say no. I will tell you that I've been very lucky to work for electeds that also feel that same way that I would never make somebody testify, especially a child. And DV kind of has those places. Sexual assaults with adults have that feeling with it as well. Well, they are not my clients, I feel very strongly, and a lot of other prosecutors do, that this and it happened to them. And their healing and their well-being is important, And I don't want to do anything that would disrupt that. So when you see those plea deals in the papers and you think, oh my gosh, how did the prosecutor come to that? It was with a really heavy heart. And nobody's more disappointed in some of those things than prosecutors are. But there's a reality of a lot of things happening at the same time. We look at how long it takes cases to move through the system. We're talking about when somebody says something that's the most horrible thing that ever happened, and I have to make them live it in excruciating detail and be able to communicate that effectively. And that takes time. That takes time to build rapport with them. That takes time to figure out how that's going to work. And while that is happening, life happens to them. We are talking about a very volatile time in their lives. We're talking preteens, teens, things that are happening. And don't get me started on social media about how that all also impacts every single day is different in their world. And so while this other very important piece is going on, there's all these other pieces that are happening in their life that affect them in that moment. Some of them are now in college and they're like, I just can't do this. I don't want to think about it anymore. I just want to go get what you can. Let's do this. And so there's so many things that go into that. So part of what prosecutors have to do and what we routinely have had to do is be really creative about how do we get to that bar. How do we take what she says and fill it and corroborate it and kind of find other pieces of evidence that will get us to that bar. Even though her word alone is enough to do it, theoretically, jurors rightfully can be skeptical about what that looks like. So we routinely have to be very creative in that space. This kind of legislation helps us have a different piece. That this is not only she said this and the defense is gonna come and say she said it because she, you know, had a boyfriend she liked and I said that they, you know, couldn't be together. We said they couldn't be together because you wanted her. You weren't jealous of the boyfriend, but, you know, that's not how it's gonna look. But if she confided in a friend about that before anything was disclosed, before anything else happened, if she disclosed to some kind of therapist or some kind of person in life, poach, those kind of things, I can then bring that out in my case in chief and say, you know what? You can certainly argue that defense and the jury will hear you and they will be able to get that. But I get to show that this wasn't a manipulation of hers or something that she just came up with and walked into the police station after a fight with the boyfriend. I get to tell also the jury for consideration that this was going on and she was terrified of what to do. And it always astounds me kind of when victims find the courage to kind of say what they want to say or kind of do that, and sometimes it is. Sometimes a boyfriend comes into their life and the boyfriend's family is this amazing supportive place, and they just feel really comfortable with kind of how that comes about. So there's a million different ways about why victims come forward at the time they come forward. And kind of the older you get, there's more of that looks retaliatory and looks in those places. So this kind of legislation will help assist us in just giving the jury a bigger picture and more to consider to see if we have, in fact, met that burden of proof, if we have, in fact, done what we said that we could do with this. I think we have done so much. Just when I was a new prosecutor, I would sit in the table. And usually, prosecutors got these kinds of cases. They got these kinds of cases because they were the cases that nobody could win. And they were the cases that took a lot of time, and they were the cases nobody expected anything to be done with. So it was kind of the training ground. And I remember sitting around a room of really talented litigators, the homicides, the drug cases, and they would say, drug cases, they have the drugs, they have surveillance, they have marked bills, they have all of these things that you can point to. And they'll march into court, skip into court and be like, this is push play. This is where it is. And you can see it all unfold. There's not much for the jury to consider in those places. Usually ID issues are those kinds of things. So those are done. And they have seizures, which generate money and all of those things. So those are the big cases. Then you have the homicides, which again, you have a body, you have a forensic You have forensics on it. You have usually witnesses and those kinds of things that you can do. There's physical things there. And they would say, what do you have? Well, I have a 10 year old who says that her stepfather has been sexually abusing her. What else? And I'm like, no. That's it. It's her testimony. And they would be like, I'd never take that to trial. And that's kind of the history of child sexual assault cases, is that there nobody want to take them to trial because they are really hard. And you have to take a lot of time to establish trust with that witness because they don't trust anything and they're very terrified. And so it takes a lot of time and meetings and those kinds of things to do it. And thanks to really wonderful prosecutors throughout our state, throughout the nation, it really started to gain steam about these are really difficult cases. They deserve really skilled prosecution and they deserve really skilled attention. So over the last twenty years, we've had the rise of crime victim services. We've had advocacy centers that come up. We have SIUs, the CACs, really wonderful, sane nurses that dedicate their time to these cases. And a really wonderful change in prosecutorial offices that really put the time and effort into these really skilled cases and the presentation of them because they do take a long time. The other kind of elements so when you think about that bar, you also have to think of the elements that are we all have to prove. It's beyond a reasonable doubt for every single element of the problem. And a lot of times with elements like this, you have time frames. And time frames are really difficult, especially for children. I kind of say that there's a kid world and an adult world. So you have a kid world, and they'll know their teacher. They'll know what they had for lunch. They know their best friend. They know when they go to dance or those kinds of things. That's kid time. And overlaid over kid time is adult worlds. You're like, Okay, mom knows I packed this lunch or mom knows this is when this is, or we go to dance on Thursdays. So there's a complicated system about how we have to deal with time. And time should be the easiest element. And with sex crimes, it's one of the hardest. So this also assists us in some of that kind of nailing that time down when certain conversations are happening, other memories get to come into play. And like, no, I know this. I'm an adult. This was when we won this game in soccer, and I know that this happened here or this is where it is. So it it also helps us kind of nail down the time frame of things because without it, it can be really, really difficult. I remember I had a case where it mattered that whether the child was 16 or not, She had a dress on. She went to a homecoming dance. Couldn't remember what it was. I spent an entire day in the library at her school and every single page of yearbooks for eight years, and I found where it was. And she was, in fact, 15. I am grateful that my boss gave me the time to do that because if you don't have the time to do that, you would really say, Well, I can kind of see it this way. I know I'm not going to risk it and that's not what it is. But I was allowed to do that. And that's kind of with kind of everybody's help, really having the refocusing about how difficult these cases are, the time that they need, and also grateful to legislatures and other court rulings that allow us to have different tools in order to get there. And that's really kind of what this is in essence. It is just allowing us another tool to go before the trier of fact in order to have a fuller picture to see whether we have met our burden or we have not. Also goes through many different things. Jen is also correct. A lot of these hearsay exceptions don't have the kind of protections that this does, where you need to have the person willing to be there to testify, that there isn't that piece of reliability. What they're saying And that's what hearsay is all about, is the reliability of something. How can we trust this? And when you have a dying declaration where you go upon a scene and somebody's lying there dying and they tell you what's happening, the thought is that that's a reliable statement because you're on your deathbed and why lie? You're right there. There's no reason for lying. So that it creates this credibility. But in this case, with this exception, it goes through a judge whether it is reliable enough to go to the jury. Defense never loses the ability to attack credibility in any form to the jury. So even if it gets in in front of the jury, the defense has every opportunity to question. You're her friend. That's why you'd say this. You would lie for her, wouldn't you? She's my friend. I wouldn't lie. That's not what I did. But the jury gets to also hear that. So this is just creating a fuller picture for a lot of the things that happen. And the other thing that I think you may hear about on some of the cases and how it unfolds when you read the newspaper versus what you may know, sometimes what you know in the newspaper is way more than any jury will ever hear because of rules of evidence like this. And if we don't have this, then that friend, when something happens, says, she said it to me and I didn't have it. Everyone knows it, but the jury doesn't. And so this is also trying to bridge that gap, saying that we do question jurors in an informative way and make sure that they're not biased and that we trust them to have the ability to vet credibility, to use all of their senses and doing that and to trust them to make the decision one way or the other. This just gives them a more fuller picture. So I feel like it's very long winded. Apologies. It's my passion front life thing, but happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So before I open it up, just a couple of questions. I just want to have a little more You've actually given us scenarios, but I just want to follow-up on Witness. Sure. Essentially, there could be a situation where someone was abused and they tell a friend. So just signing up that way. So how does that then work through the court? How does that how is that friend's testimony presented and how are these, well I guess the statements were not taken in preparation for legal proceedings, but how is number three and four on page three, how does that help protect the reliability? If you just walk through that.

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Sure. If you tell a friend so there are this isn't the only exception to hearsay. And we could try and get that friend's statement in on another exception to hearsay. One of one of my favorites, because it's a little there's a little wiggle room, is there's one called the effect on the hearer. Right? You're you're saying that, okay, so if you told your friend that something was happening and your friend got really scared and told their mother

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that something was happening,

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: then you would say to that child on the stand, the reason why you are saying this, it's not for the truth of the matter. It's not saying that that's because she was in fact abused. You're saying that because that explains your next action, which is to tell your mother. Right? And so it's like the effect on here, that information that's coming in, they made a decision to do something in the very next way, and that's a step thing. Judges very much know that that's a very wiggle room one. So you take your shot. Right? Sometimes it's successful, sometimes it's not.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: How would the time I mean, the time, content, and circumstances and statements, how does that play out if you can't use the one that's a wiggle room?

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: You can't use the wiggle room. So this one would assist it because what it's saying is like, this is what's happening. This gets to come in for the truth of matter. This is something that we can use as piece of an evidence that kind of builds to that standard. So kind of in that scenario, which we do see the claim from defendants in this older group, the 12 to 15, it's not older, but it's in the group where there's dating, there's more confrontation and just normal healthy relationship between parents and children. It's a little bit more of that. I want independence, give it to me, that kind of a thing. When you're talking about, yes, that this has been going on for this amount of time, and I told my friend that this was happening before I told my boyfriend, before I told anything else, then the court could look at that and say, you know what? That makes sense. Like, this is the right time frame. This is the right time. This is the right setting. That makes sense to me that she would disclose this to you. And that kind of fits within the context of what's happening. So these are just threshold questions to kind of say, is this something that is reliable enough? And it's not to the level that a jury would have it. Think of it like suppression. You're going in for the court to say, is this admissible enough for a jury to hear it? Is this reliable enough that we think that the jury can weigh it out. There's something there. And they get to decide what that there is, but that it is Okay to have them hear it at the time.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: The person making that otherwise hearsay statement would be on the stand for the jury or for the defense counsel to process.

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Course. And so that's kind of where that all is. And that's what they would say. And they would say that you're lying or you didn't hear them correctly. Are you sure that's what they said? Oh, you were at a concert and there was a lot of noise. How did you know that that was what was said? So yes, they get the right to confront and to question all of the time. I think hearsay is one of those really strange things we used to do, moot court. This was in New York. I'm sure it's here in Vermont. Just haven't done it. But when we would do these hearsay pieces, what I would do to help internalize it, because it does seem like this weird concept. Someone's saying it, why can't I hear it in court? They heard it, they said it. I would take one person out of the room and I would let them look at an object. It was usually like a crystal light packet, like one of those drink packets. And I would say, take a look at it. Look at it long as you can. Do whatever you need to do. Great. They would come in. And I would say, pick somebody, go out there, tell them what you saw. And so they would do that. And then the next person would come in. Was like, now you pick another friend and you tell them what you saw. And then I would have them on the sand, and I would say, okay. The third you know, the the the third friend that got it, I'm like, what did I have in my pot? I said, what I

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have in my

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: pocket? And he was like, a drink packet. Drink packet. What was the shape like? I don't know. What pocket was it in? I don't know. So again, what did you hear? They just said that you had a had a had a drink packet. Okay. Then the second person comes in, the the one that they said, what do I have in my pocket? And they're saying, had a drink packet. Okay. What was it? What flavor? They're like, it was cherry. Okay. What is it shaped like? I don't know. What pocket was it in? I don't know. Okay. Great. Then the person who saw it takes the stand. And I'm like, what did I have in my pocket? A Crystal Light packet. What was it? Cherry. What shape was it? It was long. And it was in, what pocket did I take it out of? Your right pocket. How did I use that? Yes. And so you see the value of what that looks like and that hearsay and that reliability. So we're talking the second person out that has a really good understanding of the parameters of it. They might not be able to tell you how she was abused or what specifically was said, but that this happened and that this is what was said at the time. And you can question them about it and then go to the next person. So that's kind of hopefully a good way to package hearsay and kind of reliability and what that looks like and how you can always talk to the trier of fact about what that means to be the third person out or the second person out and what that is. And when we talk about suppression and these kinds of issues, the court says, I think this is enough where I trust the jury to make that decision. They can talk about credibility. It's admissible in and of itself. You can talk about it. And those are very important. I mean, I cannot tell you how when you're laying pieces on the board, what you have to work with is everything. And every case is different. Every judge decides it differently. There is discretion within that for courts and things like that. So once we have all the pieces on the board, we can then make a better case about how we're going to proceed. So again, things like this really matter to how cases are analyzed, how they're strategized, how we present them to juries, and how strong those cases are, and how supported victims feel throughout that process.

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Does that answer your question? So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: questions, other questions by folks. Barbara, know you're here to go.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I did have my hand up earlier. So I want to ask you the same question I asked Jen about, are you happy with the age?

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yes. I mean, with the age as it is now? No. It could be, yes.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So that this is the ideal?

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I mean, I would love it higher. I would love it for sexual assault victims that are adults because they have the same kinds of trauma. But I think when we're looking at the cases here, like when you're talking about aggravated sexual assault of a child, that's 16 and under. Right? So we are covering those specific crimes that we're talking about. And right now, this group is left out. And that, I think, if you're talking about the containment and the most surgical way to right a wrong in this space, that's the easiest way to do it.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Are there states that allow for sexual assault cases? Do you know?

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Off the top of my head, everyone has different ways of doing it. Whether there is a full self one, I don't know, but I can certainly try and find out.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I'm curious. I had constituents who were Palestinians, who were sexually assaulted one, twice. And after the first time she went to court, she said, No, never again, never. But that just was heartbreaking.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Questions? How you doing, Domenica?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: To You see too. Thomas,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you know I'm gonna mention iCAG.

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I know, I love it every time. So,

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: you came into the office at kind of at the beginning of COVID.

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I did six months before.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Right, because you said five years ago. And during COVID, did the number of cases, I'm gonna guess they did, for the 12 and under, did they balloon? I I know the tips did during COVID, but I don't and and I know that the the office didn't have the capacity to a lot of capacity to to do more investigations for more cases and and that type of thing. But I'm just wondering if it did increase a little bit, the number of cases.

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Since not knowing like having compiled the data, I can say anecdotally.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, that's what you're working for.

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I think when it comes in terms of child sexual abuse material and what we're seeing in those kinds of things, is that what you're talking about with that space, we have seen a rise in toddler and infants, which is horrifying, And that is disturbing. So we have seen more of that really young subset. I think when you're talking about the 12 and under, that's kind of the cusp of pretty pubescent versus pubescent and it deals with what people are interested in and kind of some of

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: the older ones that could potentially testify. And where I'm going with it, I'm just wondering, and I know personnel and ICAC has been increased over the last few years. I'd love to see more but I know you would. But I'm just wondering if by raising it to I'm not against raising it, you know, the 16 if you're going to be overwhelmed with cases and you're going to be able to handle workload.

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Right now, we struggle to keep up with all of the tips and all of those things, but I will say, sometimes ICAC presents some real interesting pieces of If we can prove the case without a victim, that is gold standard. That is exactly what we try to do. And can we meet that bar without doing any of that? Sometimes ICAC allows us to do that. We will have a hands on case with We went to trial January. Hands on case with a three year old. We see it happening and we can have other people identify the child. We can have a time frame based on bedsheets and things like that that are just identifiable to other people. And we can do our prosecutions without victims. And that is the best case scenario for us. So these kinds of tools and anything that we can place less of a burden on these really traumatized shoulders, the better for us. And I think just the better for everyone. It's better for juries to be able to hear all of the things. I've had juries come back and read newspaper articles and be like, Why didn't you tell us? You couldn't. There was a ruling. I couldn't do it. And so I think jurors are wonderful. You always think, how to are they get through all these complicated things? And they always zero in on the right things. Their conversations are always in the places that you expect them to be, and they take it really seriously. So I implicitly trust jurors to be adults, to be people who can communicate with one another and can see information and be able to talk about it in a way that they need to talk about it. So I'm never afraid of juries getting more information because I just think it's better for everybody.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'm concerned about the resources that you have to handle and don't know if you've had those conversations around us, but it might be something to consider.

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: We are always concerned with resources and how to prioritize things and what happens. So yes, we are always in the position of making really hard choices in terms of investigating what we roll the dice and hope we're getting in the right spaces. We've had a number of cases that come in as CSAM tips that's just like, oh, this person's interested in this. We execute a warrant, and we see that they're hands on with members of the community and their own children or other people. And it is one of those things that keeps us up at night being like, oh, we know there are more out there. We just haven't gotten to them yet. So I appreciate you talking about that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yep. And I assume Amanda Raymond is still there.

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Amanda Raymond's still there. Mojo's still there. Kai is our new canine. And yes, no, they're doing really wonderful things, as they always do.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Give them our best. So just a follow-up, and then Angela, I just wanted to make clear the answers to that help me there. H five. Would this impact your resources? And how would it impact your resources if if we passed this bill?

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: In resources, I mean, I'm thinking it really it shouldn't. I mean, other than investigations happen the way they happen. Right? They're gonna we're gonna get all the information that we need to get, whether we're gonna talk to that friend, whether we can use it or not or whether we can't. It's just more on our end, which is fine, which we'll just have to make more motions. We're going to go, we get to use this and we're going to fight to use this. So we'll do that suppression. We'll have those conversations. We'll write those motions. So that is more on us. But it's a happy resource issue in terms of we would get access to more information.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Right. Yeah. And I mean, yeah, I'm always supportive of having the additional resources for that. But I just I don't think the resource I don't think you'd want us to not do this unless we type resource to a better

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Oh, no. No. I think I was answering it in a theoretical of how it hits this because we might have more cases that come about that have this based on that kind of thing. But no, this as a resource component or concern for this is not a concern for us.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I just wanted to explain that a little bit better. Angela.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I was going to actually follow on that as well and ask you if it's accurate to say that I think I heard you say that in terms of time as one of the most valuable resources, that the passage of age five might actually it would help you in that you may not have to devote as much time to developing the rapport and trust with the I mean, of course, you'll still develop rapport and trust with the victim. But as you were describing the process, if you're trying to get a victim to be comfortable enough and comfort is relative

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to stand, to

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: to

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: testify, it sounds like this is actually a way that you might have around that, that it might help in terms of time with some cases.

[Domenico Padula (Chief, Criminal Division, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Probably not. Because as you see in this, I still have to have her ready to testify. This still means and defense attorneys will make them testify. They will most likely testify in my case in chief. What it does, though, is it makes them feel not alone. Because when they testify, they're like, but my friend's gonna testify, and my coach is gonna testify, my teacher's gonna testify, and all these people are going to be there with me to say what they need to say. And it doesn't become such a thing. The other thing that it does sometimes, I think, when you're dealing with family structures and a lot of mean, the majority of our cases are intrafamilial and those kinds of things is when somebody discloses there is a huge shift in the family. There is a huge dynamic where some people are totally on his side and other people are totally not. And there's financial concerns and all of those other kinds of things like really a child goes in and detonates the world, not intentionally, but that's just kind of what happens. Exactly. Exactly. But that's not the narrative within the family. The narrative in the family is why don't you just change what you said? This can all go away. And that pressure is lessened if more voices are in that saying, it's not just me, it's this and this person saw this and we observe this. It lessens it being just on them and it makes them feel more supported and not as alone because it is a very lonely thing to do. And it's also one of those things where credibility is kind of hard sometimes because on some of those rulings, the judge says, well, you can't talk about this act because it can't come in. And so you have these 10, 12, 13 year olds editing their what they believe. And and sometimes we also have to mitigate what that might look like in front of a jury that does look like hiding, that does look like something. So there's just so much done with that. And because we ask them to testify, because I know this is at the other end of the world for them, it is totally on me to always have that relationship going, to always have that happen. Because it's not one of those cases, like, you can call them two weeks before testifying. You gotta testify. You gotta do all of this. You have to have that kind of continuous thing. And the other thing that 46 other states don't have, they don't have depositions in criminal. So the other really hard part of this is not so much with children because we have those protections for some of those age groups. But that is another aspect that is very particular to just a couple of states. That is another hurdle in terms of participation from a victim that sometimes is the breaking point of what they want to do and what they don't.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any other questions? Thank you so much for your testimony. I really appreciate that. It's been very helpful and very insightful. Appreciate it. Yeah. Well, thanks, Bob. So we may end up going a little bit past school, but I have nothing scheduled for the rest of the day after this morning. So hopefully people can hang with it for a little bit while to hear from Charlotte. If you can join us, thank you. Thank you for being here.

[Charlie Listerman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Thank you for the opportunity. I'm Charlie Listerman. I'm the policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. And you've heard such valuable testimony already today, so I will keep it relatively brief. We are proud to support H5. We see it as an extension of age appropriate protections to children who have experienced serious physical and sexual abuse. This bill builds on procedures that have been in place for more than a decade and have provided effective protection to young victims and been improved over time. We know that involvement in the legal system can compound trauma, especially for children. Being asked to recount a traumatic event in a high stress and unfamiliar environment, especially without the supports they deserve, can have significant physical and emotional consequences, and it can undermine a child's healing process and permanently shape their relationship with the justice system. And as Domenica said, make them feel very alone. That pressure can create an unintended barrier to justice. And we often see that these children who are victims of abuse have had agency taken away from them. It is important for the justice system to provide as many options and supports as possible as a victim goes through this process. And one of those is trusted people in their lives, like a medical provider or a teacher who are permitted to share information the child disclosed to them. So we see this bill as a step forward. Appreciate your consideration of it, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Questions, good job.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Sorry, we could have you right before lunch where people are thinking about. Keep people here for ten minutes, whether they have questions or not.

[Charlie Listerman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: No need.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I really appreciate that. And do you have written testimony? Yes, I'm happy to submit them. I appreciate that.

[Michele Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Perfect. Thank you. Happy New Year.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Happy New Year to you as well. So nothing the rest of afternoon. And tomorrow at nine we have some more witnesses on H5. And then we will hopefully then move on to everybody's favorite bill, H410, the recidivism. On Friday, a little bit change from if you've looked at the agenda, we're going to be having a joint hearing over at the pavilion right after the floor, at Nerdy, I think, with corrections regarding human trafficking. I can't recall who the witness is. I don't think we have that witness. This is a request from Chair Emmits that they were going to have this testimony and thought that it would be important for us to be part of it. So either after that, depending on how long that goes or at 01:00, I do want to schedule time to actually discuss H5 and discuss, have committed discussion with H5 and H410 to just kind of get a sense of where we are and what we want to do with those bills after having taken testimony today and tomorrow. So that's the game plan for the rest of the