Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Come back to the host the sharing committee on this Friday afternoon, January twenty third, and we are turning our attention back to It's 8627 and an act related to crime victims' rights in forensic cases and we're gonna be an impacted citizen. So I believe it could fit us. Thank you so much for being here. So, yeah, thank you. If you could just identify yourself for the record and proceed. Again, we really appreciate you being here.

[Emily Perry (Impacted citizen)]: My name is Emily Perry, and I'm from Bradford, Vermont. Thank you all for your time today. I appreciate the opportunity to share my family's experience as you consider age six to seven. On 05/03/2021, my sister Corina Rayom was murdered by our father. She was bringing him cookies in his house in Newbury, where we all spent our early childhood and checking on his well-being, and he violently killed her. Sorry. Corina was 38 years old and a loving mother of four sons. She was the kindest person, thank you very much. She was the kindest person and my closest and longest friend. I had taken leave from work in October 2020 and left my apartment to move in and take care of my mother in the last year of her life. My older sister, Karina, and my little brother, James, and I dedicated everything we had that year to taking care of her mother and helping her through the dying process. My mother spent the last two months of her life mourning the loss of her daughter. After a long standoff with the police, my father was taken into custody where he recounted the murder before being taken to prison. We were told at that time that he would either remain in prison or psychiatric hospital for the rest of his life. The loss of my sister at the hands of my father devastated and traumatized my family and our whole community. We are still recovering. After all of that loss, in the 2025, my family experienced trauma due to the current justice system in place which handles these types of cases. On Thursday, April 17, I received an email of this year, I received an email from the victim's advocate at the state's attorney's office saying that two weeks prior, the state's attorney agreed to not guilty by reason of insanity plea, and on the following Tuesday, there will be a hearing and that my father will be released under some conditions, like going back to church and having someone regularly check on him. This is when all of the trauma caused by

[Emily Perry (Impacted citizen)]: the state began for me and my family.

[Emily Perry (Impacted citizen)]: It is honestly a brutal story that I cannot fully tell in the time I have today. I will say that the plan at that time was to release my father who had become mostly wheelchair bound by the time back to his house, which was now unlivable, where he had murdered my sister, without telling his neighbors who had been traumatized and without telling a single other victim than myself just days before his release. I had to notify my family and they joined me in protesting the true horror of what's happening in my father's case. Our community rallied behind us and over 100 individuals wrote to the state's attorneys outraged. The following court hearings had every seat full with Vermonters who could not believe what was happening. He fought with everything we had in us to bring some sense to the state's attorney, the defense attorney, the Department of Mental Health, the judge, and with all of that pain plan sorry, with all of those efforts, the plan progressed to possibly a hotel room in Barrie. And then finally, where he is now at, an adult housing facility with a ninety day order of non hospitalization, waiting at any time to be fully released from the oversight of DMH completely. These ninety day ONHs are a slap in the face to victims and to justice. While I know there is so much long term work that needs to be done to improve these complex systems, I want to highlight several specific issues that we hope the legislature will address through this bill. Victims' rights to timely notifications. From what I understand, victims are already legally required to receive notifications from their victims' advocates, but that wasn't my experience. Sometimes I received no updates from my victims' advocate, and sometimes I received them so late that I couldn't process or act on the information shared with me. My nephews and my brother were more often completely left out. What do victims do when the law isn't being upheld and they are not receiving even the bare minimum information required currently? There must be a clear and reliable mechanism to ensure that all appropriate victims can be designated as victims of record so that the critical information is shared in a consistent and timely manner. Victims' rights to having an advocate. I know that in this bill, is mentioned that there could be a liaison for the mental health department. I think that this is a good idea, but I do not think it solves the problem that victims needs to have add victims need to have advocates who can and do truly advocate for them. People who support victims emotionally, deliver information in a trauma informed way, and ensure victims are heard in the court process. In our case, the mental health department wanted to wash their hands of responsibility in the case, so an advocate from their office would not be able to support us. The state's attorney's office also wanted to wash their hands in the case, and maybe that is why our victim's advocate did not even notify us to the extent of the current law, let alone help to inform us or advocate for us in any way. Victims need to have victims advocates that advocate for them and are not employed by organizations whose interests might conflict with them doing their job. The Department of Mental Health's role is to treat individuals with mental health conditions. Trauma is a mental health condition, and victims of murder have a right to mental health as well as those who committed murder due to their mental health conditions. The current system of care that the mental health department is modeling is causing trauma to victims, which are a vulnerable population whose mental health is already being taxed beyond belief. I hope that the mental health department commits to ensuring the mental health well-being of victims of murder and not just of those who have committed violent crimes. Lastly, I want to emphasize the critical importance of allowing victims to provide impact statements in these cases. When the state's attorney agreed to a plea agreement and decided not to go to trial, my family lost this right. When the defendants used competency to avoid or delay trials, those victims also lose that right. On Wednesday, I was here, and I heard that victims everywhere say that being able to be heard in the process was the most important thing for them. My family and I fought very, very hard, and against all odds, the judge finally allowed us to speak. I am so grateful that we were finally allowed that opportunity. My nephews got to speak of the impact the murder of their mother had on them, and I got to speak of how that loss impacted me. When the judge finally allowed us the right that we would have been given if not for the plea agreement, all decisions had already been made. It was too late for our stories to have any impact on the outcomes of the case. And I don't just want victims to be able to tell their stories in court, which is a traumatizing experience in itself. I want the courts to have an actual interest in what those impacts are. Victims want to be heard, and in order for someone to be heard, someone must be willing to listen. I'm so grateful that I was able to be here on Wednesday and to hear conversations about victims' rights. It was humbling and heartbreaking to hear so many stories so different from one another, yet all with a similar thread of trauma caused by the system which is supposed to be responsible for our safety. I am grateful for this opportunity to speak for you today to you today, and I hope that these conversations continue to happen. My hope is that in the future, victims who have lost their loved ones to murder or mental health as part of the defense are not then traumatized by the state's handling of these cases. The current system is causing devastating harm to victims, and we need to change that. Thanks so much. Thank you very

[Speaker 0]: much. Can we take any questions? Yeah. Are there any questions? Go ahead, Angela, then Karen.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: It's not a question, but I just want to say thank you so much for being here and sharing your story, thank you for your framing of this issue, like a slight reframe that I have to say I haven't considered until you said it, which is that highlighting the mental health of victims and of everyone, you know, taking the fullest picture possible into account. That's so important, and thank you so much for bringing that bring to this conversation.

[Emily Perry (Impacted citizen)]: Thank you so much. Yeah, when I was here on Wednesday, one thing I heard a lot was people talking about the re traumatization of the court process, which is unfortunately an inevitable part when you have this kind of loss. You know, you have to accept the trauma, and you have to handle that, and you have to accept that going to court and seeing, in my case, my father who had murdered my sister and be there with my nephews, that's traumatizing. And what I really my takeaway, though, was that there was an additional thing that was happening, which is a new type of trauma that was not just that retraumatization. It was its own how we were treated throughout the process. And that is really an important thing, I think, mental health to consider. Thank you. Karen?

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I have question either. Just appreciation for you being here and sharing your story, your experience. This is something that we are committed to working on this this session, and the chair may share, like, it's this bill or there's other bills that are coming, I think hearing this and making sure we incorporate that feedback in your stories is important. Thank you. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, thank you again. I'm sorry for your loss. Thank you so much.

[Emily Perry (Impacted citizen)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Believe the next update is Judge Zonay, who's joining us on Zoom. Thank you for being here, judge.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Thank you, my pleasure. Tom Zonay, Chief Superior Judge. When we're looking at H627 and you're looking at the rights of victims, I think it's important to let the committee know that victim input is critical to the work that judges do. We can see facts of a case, but the input of a victim tells of the human impacts that the facts cannot tell us. The victims' voices need to be heard, and the court needs to understand from the victims and cases the real impact on those harmed, as you just heard from Ms. Perry. That doesn't come from a record, that comes from a human being. And so when you are looking at these changes for notice on, for instance, page one, and you add that language about notice being given, on lines 18 through 20, we support that. Right now we have victims provisions in our statutes under Title 13 that provide for victims to get noticed by the state's attorney. And when we go out in a hearing, an important question is have the victims been notified? What's their position? It's important for judges to have that. And so we support the concept, whether it's this bill or the other bill that representative Dolan may have mentioned, about making sure that victims have notice so they can participate in the process. There is on page two, on line six and seven, a provision that says the court shall maintain a system for a person to file notice that the person is a victim in a proceeding. When a case is filed, the state's attorney's victim advocate, if there is a victim, will be entered as a party. They're entered into the case and they receive notices. And then under the procedures and statutes, they notify the victims. We do not currently have a process for notification from the court directly. And this provision, as far as a registry, doesn't talk about what happens as far as if somebody were to submit their name to some registry, what happens with it? Because if you look on line eight, the obligation still falls here to the state's attorney to provide notice. And subsequently in the bill, it talks about the, Department of Mental Health having to provide notices. And so I don't know that subsection B is something that is necessary, and it also has the potential to lead to issues for the court as to who gets to file that notice. Are they truly, under Vermont law a victim? And so having it come through the state's attorney as it currently does assures that we we are making, the individuals who are victims are the ones who get the notice from the state's attorney.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Can I ask the question?

[Speaker 0]: Oh, yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. The question notes.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Thank you, judge, being here. Just on that piece of it, so I'm understanding how this is adding the judiciary into the mix of it. And you're saying the state's attorney's office, they already have on file victims. What I was what I was understanding is that this is to open the door. So, like, it's not the actual victim in the case, but maybe it's a family member or something like that. Is there a system that exists right now for that? And maybe that would be the state's attorney's office.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Would come to the state's attorney's office because the terms victim and interested persons are terms, that are contained within Vermont law. They're different terms. But section here would essentially doesn't have any limitation. In other words, anyone could say I'm a victim and file something. And then is the clerk supposed to figure out if they truly are, is the court? And I think that having it come through the state's attorneys adds the consistency. If someone says they're a victim and believes they are and the state's attorney says no, they certainly can, attempt to file something with the court to say we should be notified of that. But that keeps it, again, with a consistency to what already exists for the arraignment, plea negotiations and sentencing and those matters.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Thank you.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: On page five.

[Speaker 0]: Before you go in there, Judge, just another maybe this isn't really quite captured in the bill right now, but I think I in part may understand why that subsection, Subdivision B is in there, that there's probably some dissatisfaction as far as whether all victims are in fact receiving notice. Is there if if there's failure in providing notice, is there anything currently that victims can do as far as filing with the court? Mean, is there in other words, is there any consequence or accountability if victims are not receiving notice?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Generally, if some I have seen cases where victims have filed letters with the court saying that they were dissatisfied with the notice they've received. And in circumstances, the court can then bring the state's attorney in and the victim's advocate, defense attorney, and the parties in and say, what's going on? Why is the victim not getting appropriate notices? But, as far as the ability of the victim to get the direct notices from the court, we, again, we don't do that. It goes through the state's attorney. It seems to me that to the extent that there are concerns about the victim's advocates providing appropriate and timely notice, that we should address the victim's advocates providing appropriate and timely notice. In other words, that is the expectation that the court has, and there are cases where I, on the bench, will say, we're not going ahead today because the victim hasn't received notice. Or a victim may receive last minute notice and says, need more time. And I'll say, okay, we're gonna push that down, and continue that because the victim hasn't received adequate notice. So it's always the goal of the court to make sure they get timely and adequate notice, and judges should be asking when they come out of the bench on victim cases, has the victim been notified? What is their position?

[Speaker 0]: So that is discretionary by a judge, presumably. Suppose we could look at whether there's something we can do to make the urge. Well, I mean, I know we don't like to mess with judges and discretion, but if that's inconsistent among judges, that's a concern and we may wanna look at it.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: I'm not aware that it's inconsistent, but I can take steps to assure that it is consistent and I will.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, all right, thank you. I think you were on page, I can't remember where you said- Page five.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: On page five, between lines six and fifteen, this talks about under section 4,822, which is the discharge hearing or a hearing where, there's not going to be a continuation. And it talks about on line 10, it says the right of the victim to be heard. And then a new sentence is added at the end that says the victim may express views concerning the offense and preferences for the person's placement and care, and the court shall consider the victim's testimony in its decision. I watched the testimony a couple days ago, when I believe it was Jen Polman was testifying and she talked about meaningful opportunity to provide testimony. And I think it's important for the committee to understand what happens at the 4,822 hearings and the limitations of the court. The department, under Vermont law, a judge does not have the independent authority to order continuation of a hospitalization order under section 4,822 when the Department of Mental Health does not seek its continuation, the Commissioner of Mental Health has the exclusive authority to initiate applications for continued treatment beyond the initial ninety day commitment. The significance of that is that if they give that notice and we have the 4822 hearing, the judge cannot say, no, you need to go and do that. And by adding language that provides that the court shall consider the victim's input as to, the offense and preferences, you're you're setting up the victims to believe that what they are saying as to the preferences and what they're looking for, the court can consider, but the courts doesn't have the ability to consider that at that moment. That's a decision that the Department of Mental Health has already made. And likewise for discharge, if the Department of Mental Health seeks discharge, the question for the court is whether the person continues to meet the criteria for commitment, specifically whether they remain a person in need of treatment as defined under Vermont law. In order to discharge someone, the court has to find that they no longer meet this standard to grant discharge. The discharge request also is something that is made by the Department of Mental Health. And I point this out because the limitations of what the court is looking at does not necessarily include what statute would add for the victims and the court shall consider. And that sets up attention. Attention being the judge will listen and the victim's statements by virtue of the standards the court has to legally apply can't really make it, can't really change the outcome. And so what we can see when that happens is you have victims who are frustrated. They feel the judge hasn't listened to them or what they have said hasn't made a difference. And no victim should walk out of a courtroom feeling that what they told the judge didn't make a difference. It does. Representative Goodnow talked about in plea agreements and the input for sentencing for victims. There are times where, when that happens, judges will the sentence, I can assure you, I have changed not changed. One of the parts of the calculus for a sentence is the impact on the victim. It impacts what the actual sentence will be because the judge can use it for that. A plea agreement. I've rejected plea agreements and circumstances based upon the victim's position. Those are uses that we can utilize. But in circumstances where the statute vests the authority in the Department of Mental Health to make a decision and the judge can't override that, if the victims believe that they're telling the judge something and it's going to make a difference and we all know that the law doesn't permit it to, the question I would ask the committee to consider is, is that fair to the victims? And is it fair to the system to lead to frustration? We've had quite a bit of talk over the past year or two about the sequential intercept model. And that for those who aren't necessarily familiar with it, the Sequential Intercept Model in the mental health is we try to address mental health issues as early in the system. Well, if you looked at this circumstance like the Sequential Intercept Model, it would be important for the victims to let the Department of Mental Health and have a process for them to let the Department of Mental Health perhaps know these concerns and their views before the decision is made to not seek a continuation, before the decision is made to seek discharge. And so, I know that that's not necessarily what's in this bill or contemplated, but if the intent is to provide meaningful opportunity that may effectuate the end result, that again, vests with the Department of Mental Health.

[Speaker 0]: So the concept that you're suggesting is that victims should be heard from the Department of Mental Health on location and those kinds of things. That's because your hands are tied by the statute because DMH is making that decision. So I have a couple people who have questions, but before I get to them, I just had one other question first. And that is, so the Department of Mental Health and the standards that they have and that you are following or that we have in statute, it's not just statute that requires that. It's actually kind of constitutional. I mean, behind the requirement of least restrictive environment and actually that it has to be a threat to oneself or other that you're gonna deprive somebody from liberty. That's not just statute. Mean, comes from case law and constitutional law. Am I right about that? I mean, we don't, in other words, have a lot of room to say, all right, well, we're gonna go into the DMH, to the department or the mental health law and significantly change that. Does that make sense?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: It does. I don't want to wade too far into that, I think it's safe to say that there are a number of considerations that would involve constitutional protections and others that indeed do impact these decisions.

[Speaker 0]: But there's nothing that presumably, and I won't ask you for your opinion on this, there's nothing presumably that would keep us from allowing victims to have some direct input to the DMH decision making process, I would think. Long as it's not undermining the basics that they have to follow for case law and constitutional law. I don't mean to comment on that.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Okay. Because

[Speaker 0]: that's maybe asking you to So, Kenneth and Karen. Thank you.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Hi, Judge. I looked this up online as what's happened. This is another thing that just I I just don't get it. But this guy was was only in in prison for four years, and then he was released. Which I just which guy? Just The man we're talking about.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, the person or that right. Yeah.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I really hope you submit your paperwork to so we have it on record. But he was only in there four years. I mean, is that the the statue that we're under? I mean, how did how did this even get looked at in four years time that he could come out? Is that like mental health comes in and then automatically by statute, how does that work?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: If someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity, there are procedures in place under this chapter of title 13, that the court has a hospitalization hearing, an order is made based upon that, is the person a person in need of treatment, and the court makes an order from there.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Okay, so just let me back up. So he was found not guilty by insanity right from the beginning? That's

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: my understanding from what Ms. Perry said, yes.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Okay, so Yeah, I'd like to Do you mind?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.

[Emily Perry (Impacted citizen)]: Wasn't found My understanding, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the beginning of last year, and now went to court for that plea agreement, but not until after that four year period. So So he originally did, when he was first in prison, he did get an had an expert forensic psychiatrist evaluate him and said that he was fluently psychotic at that time. Most of that four year period, he actually spent still exhibiting some of those fluency psychotic symptoms. My understanding is that we don't have a clear we weren't given because of his protections for his privacy information, we don't have an exact clear line, but in a very short period, he became out of that fluidly psychotic state, and that is when they went to court. And so that same psychiatrist evaluated him, said he was no longer fluidly psychotic. They rapidly proceeded to go to court with the not guilty, somehow with that original finding, the not guilty by reason of insanity. And because he had become for several months after four years of still experiencing that, after several months of not experiencing those symptoms, he was then deemed not to need hospitalization, and that's why we had an order of non hospitalization, because he was not exhibiting the same symptoms. There was also a long list of conditions that could put him back into that fluid psychosis, and those things were not. Okay,

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: thank you. So from what I just heard, he was found guilty by reason of sanity. Non sanity.

[Speaker 0]: Non guilty.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Correct, that's my understanding.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Okay, so then it's statue that it's looked at after four years where an individual would stand about what's going to happen with them.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Correct, the question is at the moment that you have that hearing, does that person need to be hospitalized? Are they a person in need of treatment? Do they need to be hospitalized or is there an order of non hospitalization?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So my question is, how does that come up in four years? I mean, he only served four years and then it was brought back up. What's four years, is that standard practice?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: No, when a case is filed, the pretrial discovery and the parties go forward and they would address any mental health issues which may be in existence. They may seek an order, an evaluation for competency. The Part D defense may seek an order and evaluation to determine whether the defendant, or experts find the defendant to be, insane at the time of the offense. So the the four years ties into what would have been the pretrial discovery period for the parties to move forward to get ready for trial. Had at that time, what the information that we've been told by miss Perry is that after they moved forward in the process, there came a point where the state's attorney and defense reached an agreement. The agreement was instead of having a trial and having a jury determine whether or not the defendant was guilty or not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity, that the parties had reached a plea agreement where the state was agreeing that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. The not guilty by reason of insanity related to the date and moment of the offense and whether he was sane at that time. After that plea is entered, under Vermont law, a hearing is then held to determine whether the person needs to be committed to hospitalization or non hospitalization, which relates to the time of that hearing when the judge hears it. And so by virtue of the fact that the case was in dispute for that four year period, a lot happened, Not only the discovery, but apparently the defendant had, his mental health had improved to a point where apparently the evidence was that non hospitalization was appropriate. And so there's no standard for four years. That same result could have happened after six months or after a year, if the parties had reached that agreement.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So this person gets released and it looks like it was a very, says it's not in good health and all this, but he, he was pretty much able to go and do a lot of stuff, like unsupervised, if he had another whatever, mean, something could happen. I mean, already did something unbelievable to a family member. I mean, what's protected, what's protecting those people? I mean, how do we have the laws that we're protecting those victims?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Under the statutes at that time, the court's obligation was to determine if the order of non hospitalization was going to be entered based upon the evidence or the agreement of the parties. And that's the statutory framework that we have. The order of non hospitalization is intended to address the mental health issues and address the safety issues.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, thank you. Yeah, and just, Karen and Tom, and some of this is being dealt with in S-one Hundred 93, the forensic facility. So that is something being looked at, Ken, in that other bill, which we hope to get from the Senate.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So just to add, if you don't mind. That was the other question I was gonna have. So this is just more of a reason why we need that facility so bad, right? Arguably, yes. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Karen Dolan.

[Speaker 0]: Yes.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: So bringing us back to this piece of victims being able to have voice. And I think that's what was trying to be accomplished here. And so I think I understand the situation. This is, I think, a great example of why we need to look at the whole system in these types of cases, because there's the mental health piece of it, which is medical health, and they're following kind of those rules and those lanes. They don't want to talk about the criminal and that piece of it. But then we have the court who has their set procedures of how they can handle things. So it just seems like these these two different lanes. And I get why the court can't consider what the victim is saying. I also heard Jennifer Pullman say, because I think I asked her, like, that's gonna be super frustrating for a victim to share and know that it isn't going to be used. And she shared she understands that and that it could still be powerful for victims just to share, even though they know it's not going to be considered. So one, I'm wondering if there's a change in language, but then I'm like, that is still setting people up that they're going be heard and not acted on. But my question is, are there any other points in this process where victims can be heard? Heard and maybe not acted on, but it's just they wanna get their story out.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: The victim should be heard through the entire process from the again, from the date that the individual is charged with a crime. Under Vermont law, a victim should be, heard. They have a right to be heard. They have a right to appear at hearings. They are entitled to notice. The legislature has it has provided victims advocates, to effectuate that notice and that connection between the judicial system and the victims. And so the process should be that they are heard the entire time.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Right. Just to follow-up on that. So say I'm a victim. I I want to be heard. There's this hearing coming up. I know you can't consider what I wanna say, but I just want to say it at court. Is there a way I can say that? Or what would I do? I don't I don't know.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: This, the language on line 10, a victim receiving notice pursuant to this subject has the right to be heard by the court. So I think you've added something there that, is more than it had previously said about to submit a victim impact statement. And I think miss Perry indicated that in her situation, there was a question about whether the victims would be able to say something and the judge allowed them to say something. This, that language would be very clear that victims can speak up at that hearing.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Okay. And the concern that you have is the last line of saying that the court will consider what the victim said, which is against law that's already existing.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Yeah. Mean, the victim says something that is powerful and the court is really moved by it and affected by it, if it doesn't tie into the specific factors and law and statute that the court has to apply, the court can't use it. So, will the court, I'll use air quotes, consider it? Yes. Can the court use it? No. And I and I appreciate miss Paulman's, thought that, well, it it lets people speak, and I absolutely having you know, sitting on the bench and watching a victim go through that difficult victim's impact statement, speaking to the court, it's it's powerful and it's important, there's, I don't think there's one size fits all. In other words, I don't think every victim would accept the fact that they had their chance to speak and the judge can't use it. I think some victims would say, I had my chance to speak and they can't use it. Well, you're wasting my time. Why are you doing that to me? That's disrespectful. And so I think there's different views that people may have, all of which are reasonable. There's no one right answer. My concern is that if someone feels that the judge can use what they're about to tell them and the judge can't, I think that may lead that that can be viewed as unfair to that individual and that person can walk out and just feel the court system let them down.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: May I

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: also I'm just wondering, because I hear that that was my original concern and I'm wondering if it's something like, and the court shall consider the victim's testimony in its decision as the law allows or some something. I don't know. I just feel like to because I want to open the door for those victims that you said this could be helpful, but also be clear for those other victims, like, it's not gonna be considered in the way you might be hoping. If

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: you just say the right to be heard, that would seem to provide the opportunity to speak. We do have rules of evidence, rules of relevancy. If someone's going to talk about A and B and we can only apply a facts relating to F and G, there's concerns that can be raised. And so I just I get concerned when we have language that I think has the potential for people to look at the judges and say, you are not listening to me. You're not hearing me when we are, but we just can't go in the direction someone wants. As opposed to circumstances, again, as I mentioned earlier, where we can, under the sentences, under plea agreements, continuances of cases, when a victim's are saying, we wanna have this taken care of, a defendant's asking you for a continuance, the victim's input there, things like that.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I think it's really helpful in understanding that. Okay, John. Barbara. Thank you, judge.

[John (identity unclear — likely committee staff or guest)]: I'm still a little confused around orders of non hospitalization. In this case, we're talking about the the I guess you would call it a hearing for an order of non hospitalization came at around the four year mark. So could one of these hearings be at six months, a year, a year and a half, twenty months? And what determines the amount of time as far as getting a hearing for an order of non hospitalization?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: The trigger for an order of non hospitalization is a finding of incompetence. In other words, the trigger is you would have a finding of incompetence or someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity, at which point the court then follows the statutory framework and has the hearing to determine whether there's gonna be an order of hospitalization or non hospitalization. So if for instance, in a case where a defendant is thought to be incompetent, if there's a motion file, if there's a request for an evaluation file, the evaluation comes in, says the defendant's incompetent, you can be sixty days from the date of arraignment. And if that comes in and says they're incompetent, you're gonna be having your hospitalization hearing within the next thirty to sixty days, almost guaranteed. And so the order of non hospitalization or order of hospitalization would happen there. But it all depends on that determination of whether someone's competent or was insane.

[John (identity unclear — likely committee staff or guest)]: I think I understand. So can somebody request a hearing to prove that the defendant shouldn't be hospitalized anymore, can that be requested?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: If there is an order, that's what this 4,822 is a discharge hearing. And the state, the Department of Mental Health has the ability to file and say, we'd like to discharge.

[John (identity unclear — likely committee staff or guest)]: I'll just come out and say where I'm going with it. Could a could a defense lawyer be opportunistic and say in this case where, you know, for a few months, the the the person isn't in, like I don't know if the right term would be psychosis or not or isn't psychotic for a short period of time for whatever reason. Could could a defense lawyer be opportunistic, get one of those hearings during that that potentially short time frame, and get somebody released from the hospital?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Under the criminal statutes, the discharge hearing has to be filed under Section 4,822 by the Department of Mental Health. So a 4822 discharge hearing is not able to be filed by anyone. The Vermont Supreme Court has said that the Department, Commissioner of Mental Health has the exclusive authority to initiate applications for continued treatment and likewise for the discharge.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Okay, thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Angela Arsenault, Barbara.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Judge Lamy, I've been looking at the National Center for State Courts, who has a lot of information about reimagining competency hearings, etcetera. And I'm wondering, I know you are quite involved with the national scene. Is Vermont doing things really differently than other states? Are there ways that other places have been able to

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: approach things

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: or resources that they have that we don't have?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Well, short easy answer is yes. Other states have different strategies. And the question is, are those strategies ones that we should bring to Vermont? And for a number of them, the answer is again, yes. And that's why I know that I look at the mental health commission, I know Senator Lyons and her committee has been working at S 91 a few years ago and other bills. And so, yes, there's a number of things in other states and we're trying, what I'm watching in the legislature do is what I'm seeing is the legislature is trying to reach out and say, what can we bring to Vermont that works in other jurisdictions? And so, there's a lot out there.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: And you and I talked a little bit about trauma informed courts and the work that you've been trying to do. Do you think there's anything related to when cases involve whether somebody's like, could we be doing more with the trauma informed training for these types of cases?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: You can always do more training.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Okay.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: And so the short answer is, could we be doing more? Yes. Adequate training, appropriate training, it's critical. And we, as we've talked, the judiciary does have trainings, not only for judges, but for our staff on trauma informed matters. And so we, can we do more training on those topics? Yes, we have a number of very important areas that we try to engage in training on for the judges, but that is one that we, we do have trainings on, and we try to have continual trainings on that on a regular basis to make sure that all judges are up on the best, strategies, and knowledge on how to make sure that our courts do take into account the trauma that individuals who are coming into our courts have experienced both outside of court and, the potential trauma that comes from actually participating in the court process.

[Speaker 0]: Angela, good to hear.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Alright. I'm wondering if you can just say what the point of a 4822 hearing is. Because here's why I ask. I'm reading this and listening, and I feel like there's some I'm confused or there seems to be some conflicting information. I'm sure you'll explain it, and it will no longer be conflicting. But it says I understand. I've heard you say that only DMH it is by motion or the action of DMH that triggers this 4822 hearing that the court cannot overrule Department of Health. But it also says, I'm looking at page six, line one, if the court determines that commitment shall no longer be necessary, it shall issue an order discharging the patient from the custody of DMH. So I think I'm just missing some information about what the court can and cannot do, what the purpose of this hearing is. If DMH is saying we should know I don't know how to phrase it. This person no longer requires treatment. And then the hearing is held to determine if the person no longer requires treatment, and the court can make that determination. It sounds like a circle that doesn't quite meet or something. And it seems like there should be room for victims to impact what's happening.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Subsection C and subsection E shouldn't be separated the way they are, I think for clarity's purposes. In other words, the question under subsection C is when the Department of Mental Health files to discharge someone, what is the standard the court must find to determine whether they're going to grant the discharge or not? So then jump to subsection E. If the court determines that commitment shall no longer be necessary, it shall issue an order discharging. So if the department files and says, we want to discharge, and the court finds that the person is still in need of treatment,

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: then- How does the court find that?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: The court would have to have evidence presented at the time of that hearing.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And that could be evidence from an, if state's attorney brings in an independent psychiatric professional to evaluate the defendant?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: These are the type-

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: sorry, go ahead.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: These are the issues that the courts have to address as far as what are the parameters and who gets to bring in witnesses and who has the burdens. There is not a specific statute which clearly identifies that. And so I can't really opine on exactly that, who gets to absolutely do X, Y, and Z in that hearing, because that's something that can be up for debate for the courts. Have to So

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: on that list of potential witnesses, would we not put victims?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Well, the question is, if there's a hearing conducted on 01/23/2026, the question is on 01/23/2026, is the defendant a person in need of treatment? If the court determines that they are, the court would not discharge them, the court would continue them in the custody of the Department of Mental Health. The Department of Mental Health, when the court commits somebody, is determines if they're in their custody, the court department determines where they're hospitalized, where they're living, and those types of issues.

[Speaker 0]: So to clarify a little bit as well, when you say it's a person in need of treatment, the key is that the person has a mental illness and as a result of that mental illness is a danger themselves or others. It's because it's wrapped up into that mental illness and as a result of mental illness, that's where you have to defer to the Department of Mental Health. Correct. Person doesn't have the expertise on that being the heart of the issue,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: then that's the sole authority. But

[Emily Perry (Impacted citizen)]: because you authority.

[Emily Perry (Impacted citizen)]: And it's not what Right.

[Speaker 0]: Will accept. You don't know. If

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: If other witnesses can be brought in, then it's not necessarily DMH making. I mean, they're making that call to kick off the hearing, but there are other potential influences, professional like licensed, what have you, maybe. I don't know. Apparently there's no lift, but it just seems like at first blush, it's like very clear. As DMH makes the call, the court can do nothing about it, but I don't think that's what I'm hearing.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Well, if you look at it, there's two separate issues. One is, let's say, whether there's going to be a request for a continued order. If there's no request, that's it. If DMH doesn't request it, representative Arsenault, the statements don't impact and can't impact that because the court is powerless to say, oh, what you just told the court was powerful and we agree with you and we should go forward. We can't. So in the discharge hearing, the question is, is the information that the court is receiving information that can assist the court in making its decision to determine whether the person is suffering from mental illness, and as a result of that mental illness, their capacity to exercise self control judgment or discretion in the conduct of their affairs or social relationships is so lessened that they pose a danger of harm to themselves or others. That's the person in need of treatment. And so the court is looking at the person in need of treatment.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So I don't mean I guess we're going to pivot I'm going to pivot us a little bit, because I have a question about something on so we're on page five of this 10 page bill. But I wanted to say quickly that I feel like this is really helpful, Judge. I really appreciate us being able to explore this because we have another bill that we're going to be working on in the same area. It is really complicated, and there are a lot of different areas that are intersecting here. So I think the conversation's great. My one question to you, judge, is on page five, the bottom, line 19 to 21. So this is basically, if we don't give proper notice to a victim, the court shall continue the hearing. So what I wanted to know was, I really like this language, and I think that the sister language in 13 VSA 5321 should also say this. And I'm curious to what your thoughts on that are.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: That's a policy decision for the legislature. But what I can tell you is that under 5321, and what representative Goodnow is talking about is that there's language in the notification statutes that say the court won't continue things just for failure to give the notice. And I can tell you that, I can speak for myself and I know other judges who say, well, we're continuing it. You know, we don't have to, but we're going to because the victim should receive notice. So conspicuously absent from my comments today, was any objection to the language in section on lines 19 through 21 that you just referenced, Mr. Goodnow. I understand that. I would only note that there may be a circumstance where the, and you might want to tweak the language, that they've tried and with good faith efforts, because I do know there's times that you can't notify someone. But the idea- But fundamentally, that's a legislative policy decision and I certainly understand why that would be a direction the legislature goes in. Great, thank you.

[Speaker 0]: All right, so moving on then, I'm sure that you have some comments on line eight of page six, unless I'm completely reviewed from past testimony regarding words like timely.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: I think timely is broad enough that it provides us it provides enough flexibility to be used without tying people in and it sends a message that we want something done in a manner that is going to be, I'll use that word, meaningful again.

[Speaker 0]: So is that a word that's frequently or at all used where you statutorily have to do something in a timely manner?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Again, I think it's a pretty subjective term.

[Speaker 0]: Right, it's not promptly, which I think promptly is quicker than timely.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Yeah, Yeah. Timely would, I think brings into it components of, to consider what the purpose of the notice is, and if you give the notice, does that effectuate, does the person have the adequate time to prepare or get ready for the hearing or to get there?

[Speaker 0]: Okay, yeah. Anything else on any of the other parts of the bill?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: I have nothing further. Thank you very much. And if you have any additional questions, please don't hesitate. Let me know.

[Speaker 0]: Absolutely. I'm sure we will be visiting with you much more on this subject matter when we see the forensic bill from the Senate as well. Thank you very much, judge. Thank you, judge. You. A great weekend.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Thank you very much. Have a great day.

[Speaker 0]: Feel fast.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: We're trying. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: So do folks need a five minute break before we go to Tim McManus, or do we just want to be done?