Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Judiciary committee this Friday afternoon, January twenty third, continuing this testimony on h six twenty seven, and I'll turn it over to the Department of States attorneys in the very capable hands. Attorney of past.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I know. Okay. Good intro.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. That's a pretty good intro.

[Speaker 0]: You can tell it's Friday afternoon when things get a little crunchy, even when we're doing such serious matters.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. If you could identify yourself for the record and proceed.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Oh, sorry. I logged into my computer three times, and it didn't work. For the record, my name is Kim McManus. I am representing the Department of State Attorneys and Sheriffs here on H627. And I'm as far as the bill goes, I have a few notes, and then I imagine there's a few questions on of the testimony I heard earlier. For the notice appearing, we have no issue with explicitly stating that the state's attorney's office will convey the notice appearing to the victims. This is part of a victim's case, and they would receive notice of this hearing as long as everything's going right. There is, of course, human error, and things can get missed. Our victim advocates have, on average, 600 cases. We receive notice of hearings via email from the court, And you are going through those hearing notices and then sending them out to the victims. And that is not to excuse if anyone has not received notice, but that is the exception, not the rule, in these types of hearings. We treat these notices the same as if it was a motion hearing or a plea hearing or the trial date. It's considered a hearing involving their case. And under 13 VSA 5,304, the Victim Advocate Program, this is a hearing that we would be required to tell a victim. If these notices are not being sent, if there's a trend that's happening, that is something we must know about because that is a training issue that we can take care of. But I do not believe that that is occurring widespread. So I don't believe you need to put it in here explicitly, but I also there's no issue if you do. That's fine. It's happening, it should be happening. I know there's conversation, and I believe it'll be around the warning of state's attorney or the other prosecuting office and who's actually doing it. In other parts of the statute or its victims' rights, sometimes it's referred to as the prosecutor's office. And then within that, it's the victim advocate who is giving the notice. Ultimately, it's the state's attorney's responsibility that this is being conveyed, and it's through the victim advocate. But I think something like the office Does

[Speaker 0]: the attorney general's office have a victim app?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: They do in their criminal division. Yes. So definitely either a prosecutor's office, and that would cover both agencies. Or if you want to say state's attorney or attorney general, and then the office will or shall provide notice.

[Speaker 0]: So before you and that's on all of page two, those what you're looking at?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: The bottom of page two there. I imagine that I heard in past testimony sort of reworking that language a little bit. But also, I mean, if you do leave it to say state's attorney or prosecuting office, the interpretation is for us that it'll be through our victim advocate. But again, our state's attorney is, I think, responsible.

[Speaker 0]: So how does the state's attorney make sure that they have the complete list of victims?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Well, we intake from initially probable cause affidavit that comes in. Victims are listed. Victims are mentioned in the affidavit and then in case file that comes, victims are listed as they're known at the time. So we take that initial information. And then as the case is ongoing, we may realize that there are other victims involved or victims listed. We'll mention somebody else, and then we will collect that additional information.

[Speaker 0]: Or if individuals, do they, well, I don't know if the word petitions, right, notify you that, hey, I'm a victim, they'd be added, but you'd look to see if, in fact, they meet the definition. Exactly. Presumably if they disagree, they can file something directly with the court. It sounds like that's what's happened with Judge Chittenden.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yes, and yeah, haven't experienced that personally, but I imagine. But yes, if for some reason someone reached out to us wanting to be considered a victim and they fell outside that definition, we would have to say, we can't provide you the victim advocacy services, and then imagine they would petition the court. I've never personally experienced it. So in that, some of these cases have many victims who need to receive notice for each and every hearing. When we move on and enter the world of needing the hospitalization hearing. Sorry, the notices we give them, the hearing has happened, either hospitalization order or non hospitalization order has been issued, and DMH is now in charge of that person. We can only provide information that we are given. And DMH does not provide us much information. And we would happily, gladly, pass information to our victims if we get that information from DMH. I was speaking with a victim advocate who was with our department for twenty something years. And she said that before the state hospital closed, so pre 2011, we had a form that if somebody was at the state hospital, we had a form that we could fill in with victim information, provide that to the state hospital, and DMH would provide the victim notice when that person was released from the hospital. That system was then in place before 2011. Post-twenty eleven, that system seems to have gone away. And we're told that they're not able to do that anymore. And we have never received any clarity on why. No state or federal law has changed that we're aware of that could not allow us to have them release information. We do not want or need personal medical information. We understand that's protected. But as you've heard, I believe, from a number, if listened on Wednesday in particular and again, sorry, Emily, I don't know what you said today when folks are being released or moved around to different settings, from secure to community, For our victims, that is horribly unsettling. The person that they fear the most, they don't know where they are. Knowing where they are gives some sense of security, and victims plan their lives around where these individuals are. They will avoid an entire county for this reason. So anything this committee can do to help facilitate, to order the communication from the Department of Mental Health to our office, we welcome that. Again, we have the information, we will share it.

[Speaker 0]: So where specifically is the provision as far as where they are moving somebody around? Looks like that industry came to.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: So when we get into discharge hearings, the decision at a discharge hearing might be that somebody who was hospitalized is not going to be hospitalized anymore.

[Speaker 0]: So is that on page four of the bottom line, 19 to 20, or is that, well, 17 from 20, that the discharging the person from being hospitalized or sick the residential recovery? But the this doesn't cover movement from one location of nonhospitalization to another.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Maybe in another section.

[Speaker 0]: Think that No, one

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: is that the one

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: on page six, lines 13 through 15? Well,

[Speaker 0]: have

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: a question there, and it might that might apply. Okay. Yes, please. Uh-huh.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And is it also if I may, are you also referring to the notice that's given on page three subsection? Someday I need to really know the difference between subsection and subdivision, but that's for different So C1, where it says the commissioner of mental health shall give notice to the discharge to the committing court, and we're add potentially adding to any victim of the offense and to the state's attorney of the county where the prosecution originated. So lines six through nine, are you saying that that notice is not happening currently by practice?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I'll hesitate on saying that, and I will get back to you on that specific point. I apologize for when we get into forensic facilities, I will be bringing in a chart because the only way to keep up with these statutes is to have a flowchart in front of you all the various points that things can branch off. What I have been told is that we are constantly the ones asking DMH on these ninety day cycles. What's about to happen? Are you going to keep the person? Are you not going to keep the person? And essentially, we're told, wait, the order is public, and then the discharge, but we don't know beforehand. So that 10 currently it's Right, we're not consistently assuming that. Okay. And the feeling not feeling. Again, once we have an offender in this trap, we need to proactively be reaching out to DMH to get any information to give to our victims. And DMH testified that they don't need to give the information. They don't need to share it.

[Speaker 0]: So if we keep in the language that's on page five from the bottom, that if the victim has not given notice, they have to continue the hearing, does that provide the appropriate incentive for our friends in the DMH to fill this out?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I would imagine that would help. So we do support. We support everything in the bill that adds in that the DMH would inform the victim directly if the victim wishes to opt into that. Some victims may not want to hear from DMH and will want to hear it through their victim advocate if they've developed a good relationship with their victim advocate. So having it come to us and to the victim as options.

[Speaker 0]: So can I ask you a broader question? Sure. I understand we're struggling right now with law enforcement victim notification, goes to state's attorneys victim notification, now it goes to Department of Corrections victim notifications. I'm leery about adding the Department of Mental Health and Dale or of AHI generally, we need another victim notification system because they don't have one. So that part, it concerns me. What I'm hearing is what we really need to do is tighten up the notification to the state's attorneys who this is just asking for balls to be dropped. I agree. Already dropping between POC and between those first three. Looking at where let's check on that. Not dropping at states of

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Trinity No, is a no, no. On that, I'll pause. I don't mean to interrupt, but we're coming back

[Speaker 0]: No, to go ahead. Yeah.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: So currently, and this came out of the Vines task force that has been working on improving the victim notification system that's housed out of DOC, and that is for anyone who's sentenced or in custody of the Department of Corrections. It's an automatic system. Anyways, out of that task force, a much larger conversation began of victim notification across the board from start of incident and police contact all the way through to post conviction. And we actually right now are drafting a memorandum of understanding that tracks all of who's responsible for what the entire way through. Because as you know, I think I counted the other day, it's across four titles and 10 or 11 different stat sheets what victims' rights are in general, and then their notifications of various bits and pieces are spread all over the place. So even the folks who do it day in and day out are going to benefit from this memorandum of understanding that lays out each section and the handoffs, like what the handoff system is and improving that so that we It's not that those individual systems are dropping off. It's often the handoff between them that bridging those more clearly and successfully and understanding that when we're communicating with victims at various points, what information is being heard and processed is different than what's being told. Not everything can be processed in the moment, in various moments. So repeating that information and having that information continuously, we think is going to be very helpful. So just so folks know on a bigger picture, those three entities, law enforcement, state attorneys and chair ups, and DOC, have been working on that. The network has been part of that conversation, and so has Jen Pullman. She's one of the signers in the document as well. So I think you will, when that's done, we'll share that with you.

[Speaker 0]: That's the reason

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I think that'll be important.

[Speaker 0]: As a result, or that was in the miscellaneous bill from last year. Yes. But DMH and Dale are not part of it. No. That uncertainty, if we can get them providing it to you, that would be the most critical.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: And it'll be exciting to hear what comes out of that. I'm just thinking when people go to the doctor sometimes, they get a lot of information, and it seems like medical personnel are really good at, we're going to give you a discharge, like a summary of your visit today so that you know, like, oh. The other thing is I was looking at some states that have, like, a checklist that victims get of, here's how you can get this or be involved in that. So I'm hoping

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: The Vines Task Force has been some of the work coming out of that, is improving the information that's available. So it really spread far out from the Vines piece and has been very collaborative. To the chair's point, one of the things I was concerned and circled was, and you don't have to flip to it, but on page eight, this coordination between DMH and us, coordinating meaningless without more definition. So if the bottom line is just that we are receiving the information consistently and that we're able to receive information about where the person is, as specific as they're able to get, we do recognize that at a certain point, maybe the location is essentially giving personal medical information. We understand there's some area there, but we would encourage this committee to push back on DMH a bit revisit their stance on what they can provide or not provide. HIPAA, of course, is real. HIPAA has exceptions for public safety. It has exceptions for court orders. When we reach out to DMH, we are often referred to their statute about disclosure of information, Title eighteen, seven thousand one hundred three. We get an email saying, hey, we can't mention that. And then you cite the statute. I would encourage you all to look at it and to see, and again, ask DMH, what could we amend in this statute.

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: This is which one?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Title 18, section 7,103. So this is for DMH their disclosure of information, like what they're allowed to give and when. And essentially, that it's all confidential except for. I mean, there's some exceptions.

[Speaker 0]: And note that that's our statute that we can change as well. We can say that this information.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: That is what I would need to for consider. But understandably, to have DMH come in or their assistant attorney generals that are embedded there to help If with that it said this, then we could say when they've been moved or released. That would be very helpful.

[Speaker 0]: So right now, they're saying they can't tell us where they're being moved. Is that I just wanna make sure I understand.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yes. Yeah. Essentially, this is a very this is an email, and it'll give you an example. The victim advocate, this person happened to be at the state hospital and said, our question about how the victims are notified when somebody's released from the state hospital. And the response was, There's considerable limits to what we can do. I'm not even supposed to tell you. They're in Rutland. But I felt I could edge my bets. While the ONH itself is a public record as an order, all the information related to treatment is not. And then they refer you to this title. And then we're given the suggestion, your best bet is to track the ninety day orders coming out of your court there and to contact us as the order is about to run out. I can tell you things like if there is a filed case seeking further treatment, and then you can infer that they'll remain in the hospital or when a new Oh or ONH is entered. But that's the limit of what I can tell you.

[Speaker 0]: So is that something that can be public record, redacted form?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I would redact it because Yes, I don't want to but this is a regular response that we get. And again, this is such a point of frustration for our department. We get different responses in different counties, and there's different assistant attorney generals assigned for different areas. And so you always ask because maybe you'll get a little more information. And that's just wildly frustrating. And to try to explain that to a victim or a victim's family is just beyond. Kim,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: one thing I just wanted to make sure as part of this conversation, how many victims does a victim advocate have responsibility for on average, ballpark?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Currently, our average is 600 cases per victim advocate.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So to not testify, would you say it's pretty unrealistic to expect a victim advocate with 600 cases to have this proactive responsibility to have to be reaching out instead of getting the notice sent to them?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yes. And again, we've got to calendar

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: All the ninety day

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: And if there's various ones. And one has to remember, our system is not currently set up that we have a statewide victim advocate who has all these types of cases. A case like this that has this mental health offshoot is mixed in with your burglary case, your court case, your sexual assault case. And so yes, we are generally reacting to the information coming from the court and then putting it out there, having to try to track this. Our victim advocates try, and they are going above and beyond trying to do this. It's just you're always set up to fail.

[Speaker 0]: And do you have a number of how many individuals who've gone through the criminal justice system have LNHs

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: currently? Yeah. It is in our data snapshot. I don't know it off the top of my head, but I can get

[Speaker 0]: It's not an equivalent number of those who are incarcerated. It's in the dozens, if I recall. I've seen the number before. It's not It's like just a huge number or something. Yeah, okay, that's fine. And my point only is that I'm not saying that that means that the number is so small that the state's attorneys can the victim advocates can keep track of it. It's small enough for the DMH or data to be able to provide that. It's not gonna be able to burn some

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Because it's in the context of the other 600 cases. Yeah, maybe a bit of it has one or two, but the fact that it's part of that. Barbara

[Speaker 0]: and I And then Kenneth, you for me.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Yeah, I did. So I'm wondering, because you said something that a court order can release the information, so I'm wondering if one of the things that we consider is somehow that there be a standing court order when somebody is on this track so that it covers DMH if they're concerned about violating federal HIPAA and state HIPAA. If they have a tort order, they're in a different position, and that would be a good way to do that. I'm wondering, is that a good

[Speaker 0]: way to do that?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I would encourage you to look at that. Unfortunately, not in your legislative council. I cannot advise you. And I'm by no means an expert.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But does that make more work for your

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yes. And it is within the existing statute, there is a subsection subsection about court orders. I would just encourage you to take a look at it and, again, ask DMH whether is the current wording enough? And it's that we need to then have judges have the option to say in these cases, Okay, this person has an O and H, and I'm ordering that location information. I don't know how those pieces all work together, but I think it's an avenue to explore. And it's something that victims could go to court and say to the judge, would like to do

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: a court order because I want to get that information.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Right, for my personal safety?

[Speaker 0]: Or we can change the statute and require But it's

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: fine. We don't want to put more burden,

[Speaker 0]: in my view, on the court or victim's organs. So, Kenneth?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So, just to back up, so all the laws, everything that has to be followed, the frustrations, everything, the lack of protections as far as I can turn for victims and all that stuff, that falls back on us. We're the we're the luck one. Maybe not this current legislate that legislature, but it starts with us. I mean, we're the ones that make the laws. Right? Yeah. Who else makes the laws?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: No. You are the ones who make the law.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: We make all the laws in this state. Right? Because when I was first told I was a law

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: What are your thoughts on me?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Well, when I was first told I was a lawmaker in this in the state of Vermont, I had no idea what I meant. But I was just a legislator. Right? And then I found out I was a lawmaker. It's like, oh, heck. And then And you thought you were just Right. No. I never thought I was a politician. So don't but anyway, the point of the matter is, so people have got frustrations the victims and all this stuff, and I'm not saying come get us, although I am, like, the buck stops here. Right? Don't be afraid to say

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: say it? Would love it

[Speaker 0]: if the buck just stopped here. There's also a senate the governor wants to sign this.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I get it, but it failed the legislature that makes these decisions.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yes, and then

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: The governor can veto, he doesn't make the laws. The

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: boundaries you all have are The US and Vermont constitution, and potentially some federal laws. So yes, as far as I mean, are limits to your power, lawmakers, And in the context of criminal proceedings, defendants have constitutional protections. That is how our criminal justice system is set up. But there is a lot that you can do to center victims more in our system.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: There's a lot more we should be doing for the veterans. Actually, we're working towards that. Tom,

[Unknown Member (suggested using VINEs)]: it seems to me that there's some judicial interest whatsoever left that we have in that individual, be it for the victims or anyone, it should automatically be implied that they're just gonna notify the court there's a change in status coming in and with as minimal information as they would need, the courts. Or at least

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: the state's attorney. Yeah, one of

[Unknown Member (suggested using VINEs)]: the state's attorney, whoever. And it should go in vines, you know. I don't know why it couldn't. That's a whole other I don't know.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, that one's a whole other thing. Right. One that they're working on, in fact.

[Unknown Member (suggested using VINEs)]: But I mean, if the courts have an interest, it's give and take here.

[Speaker 0]: Alright, so back to the bill

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: things specifically to the other to all of that, Judge Zone made my comment for me, but I'll just reiterate it. On page five, the court shall continue the hearing if the victim has not been provided with notice. If that remains, just adding the some shall use all reasonable efforts language for notifying the victim, Because there are many instances where we are trying to do everything we can to notify a victim, and we cannot get in touch with them. We don't have an address. We don't have a phone number. We don't have an email. People move. People change. We had speak about

[Speaker 0]: I had to give you guys On

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: page five. I apologize. Good. Back on page five.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Right, got you. Yeah, yeah, we were just talking about

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Some sort of reasonableness there, so that if we had to go to court and say, We have tried everything, except that the hearing can't happen without the victims not available. To Representative Arsenault's earlier piece on page six, information concerning release from custody, the language added on 13 to 15 would address that issue of transferring from a secure to a community based setting. I wondered out loud when I was reading this, because of where this is in Title 13, we all, when we read this, understand this to be DOC, the agency, having custody. I've never thought about any other agency.

[Speaker 0]: I

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: don't know if anyone else has. So if you're considering that to include DMH, I would want that to either be explicit or somehow noted in your

[Speaker 0]: It's not clear that the commissioners would get custody?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I think it's clear that the DMH When the person is in DMH's custody, yes, I think that is I just When I read this in Title 13, subsection 5,305, where that is in the statute, I just always think that the Department of Corrections is the agency. If other people read it, everyone will interpret that to mean any agency in the state that has custody. Maybe I'm just off on this, I've just never thought of anyone else. Because if you read that first sentence, it says, including a release on bail, conditions of release, furlough, community program, termination, or discharge from probation, dependent escapes. That is all department of corrections, no other agency. So just might be a point of clarification. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: I was

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: just gonna say, usually,

[Unknown Member (suggested using VINEs)]: about five hundred is a minute running concurrently with the DMH order, or they're serving some sort of corrections. They're under corrections provision if they're in DFH custody.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I mean, not always. I mean, if

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: they Not always.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Guilty by reason of insanity. Right. There's no Right. If they're incompetent, if there's a hold without, that's that's running concurrently. But again, if this is interpreted as DOC, DOC is not informing us that DMH has moved somebody. DOC is not getting that information, as far as I'm aware.

[Speaker 0]: So it could be under Dale as well, if it's somebody who has gone through the process. Right.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Right. So again, any agency in the state and then again, I might just be reading that too narrowly, only because the rest of the sentence refers all the DOC. If you are making this change and whether it's just in your notes coming out of the session that all the notices. Makes

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: sense. Yeah.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: And then my last few points, I think we've addressed big question mark around this victim liaison position for all the points that have been raised. You don't necessarily need to add another person to the mix. But if they're not willing to share the information with us, then yes, they should have somebody who's sharing that information. But if we can clear up the pathways to the information to us, then it's likely better to not have another person.

[Speaker 0]: Great. Any other questions for Earthquake? All right. Thank you. So and Larry will take us home on page six twenty seven here. And if we have any more energy, we'll ask him to weigh in on six twenty six. As

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Matt's coming up, one question I have from that testimony is just hear from. But generally speaking, when we're talking about bit about victim notification, should we be aiming to lessen the number of people who are notifying victims? Right. Well, that's Should we Is that not better? Is that a separation? I guess, like just because it does it's pretty relevant to this, what we're looking at here and probably some other places.

[Speaker 0]: Well, think that's the whole this whole Lyme study group was. And and I think just what what Kim was saying, the individuals that currently have primary responsibility for victim notification are working that out. It's law enforcement to I see. See. But we're now missing we are missing this part. Yeah. And so and that makes sense.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I guess my question is just if, yeah, if we should be aiming towards less people, then

[Speaker 0]: I think it would make

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: a lot more sense for us to really utilize the state's attorneys, victim advocate process, and not have a deep

[Speaker 0]: Right. Well, let's see. I think we're on to it.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Okay, great.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you for for being here. It's great to work our way into the weekend through your testimony.

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: Right. Fear that it will be anticlimactic.

[Speaker 0]: Well, that's we don't mind that at the end of the week. But

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: I'm looking forward to whatever questions people might want to ask, if they want to ask them, if it's actually even a question.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: You like Are you getting at something? That's a question.

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: There is a difference between a question and a filibuster. But

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I'm that smart.

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: Any event, I am Matt Valerio. I'm the defender general. To be perfectly honest, much of this bill has nothing to do with the defender general's office.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. So it'll be quick if we can go to

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: the sixth. This should make them Well, we take expire. Exactly. I mean, the let me just say, as a matter of context, obviously, this issue was patched out just a couple of years ago in-depth. Of course, it was during COVID. What the the rights that were established and that you're now looking at again really are not that old, but maybe what you're looking at is refining them. That having been said, as part of the bill that started at that time as s three and ultimately came into law, eliminated the defendant general's office from representing people once somebody was found incompetent to stand trial. So we're not even in the case at the time that these notifications occur. The Vermont Legal Aid is now the entity that represents people once they've been found incompetent. So when it comes a time for, modification of orders of nonhospitalization or discharge from the hospital. It's Vermont Legal Aid that is handling those proceedings, and, the defender general's office, is not counsel of record in those matters. I will say, and I will restate what I said, I guess, it's five you know, three three years ago, four years ago. The defendant general's office has never opposed the notification of victims, regarding change of status for individuals, who are in a department of mental health custody on an order of hospitalization or not order of nonhospitalization. It is that has never been a a concern, and it was never anything that we oppose. I will also say that there is a gap of wild people who are on orders of non hospitalization, where unlike, for example, the Department of Corrections when somebody is on probation, there is no monitoring system involved where if somebody is starting to decompensate or get off their medication or not live where they're supposed to live or that kind of thing, There is no clinical and social work affirmative monitoring from the Department of Mental Health that would bring that person back to court to modify those conditions of of hospital not hospitalization, and prevent affirmatively issues that arise. And I have long advocated for at least when this issue started coming up from probably 2019 to now that the Department of Mental Health have something that is and this is key, and it's not directly on your will, but this is key, akin to akin to probation officers, but with but being social workers who's who are designed to recommend treatment and to recommend modifications to where is it nonhospitalization, before things get out of hand, before other crimes are committed. And so to alleviate concerns of victims in these cases and to and the lie criminal liability potentially of the people who are out, somebody needs to be monitoring them, watching them, checking in with them, providing social work, so that so that this can occur. This would be require the creation of some sort of unit within the Department of Mental Health whose job it is to do exactly that. To me, that kind of thing would provide a lot more actual protection and comfort to victims if they knew that there was somebody out there doing this. As it is now, we wait until there's a law enforcement incident to bring the folks back to court before we do anything. And the and the people who are involved in that, they get recharged again as a criminal matter, which they're already been determined to be incompetent. And but you gotta start in the court again. And now we've got these things that just recur, recur, recur, because nobody's proactively doing what, we would hope they that we could do to prevent this to begin with. Alright? So this is not really speaking directly to the notification issue. But when we have a change in status from a hospitalization order, perhaps to a non order of nonhospitalization with conditions or when and then if you just have a order of nonhospitalization conditions resulting coming out of the original case,

[Speaker 0]: If

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: the people if there's a proactive way of addressing those issues, you're gonna get more results, of my opinion, than waiting for there to be a law enforcement incident that's not gonna be good for anybody, including the person who suffered from the mental illness. So my office has never, opposed, the notice issue. The HIPAA issue is a red herring, because all you need to do is change the law and order them. You know, put put it in the law that says this will be an exception, and it it becomes a nonissue. I believe there's actually provisions in law currently that, everybody can find a reason not to do something. But I think current law covers it. But if you wanna make sure that if it if to eliminate any confusion that might be out there, explicitly state it. The the thing about the bill as it's drafted is the defender general's office really has nothing to do with most of any of it, because we're not supposed to be in the case anymore once there's a finding of incompetence. The only way we get back in the case is when there is this subsequent law enforcement incident, and you've got somebody on a nonviolent hospitalization order who picks up another charge. And then we've got one active criminal case until they're found in copy and again, running at the same time, as you've mentioned earlier, as the nonhospitalization order that is not being monitored and enforced by anybody unless they run into law enforcement again. So I would encourage you to think about that. I would also One of the things think I've talked to the chair about this previously offline, is that there is a It is supposed to be that once there's a finding of incompetence that the defendant general's office is out of it. But some courts, notwithstanding the fact that legal aid is now counsel of record, refuse to let the criminal counsel off the case. So now we have two lawyers, but it's not the defendant. We don't wanna be there. We we don't have jurisdiction over the matter that is being argued, which is what are these conditions of nonhospitalization or what's gonna happen if it's a hospitalization order and the like. That's not we're not council of record on that, yet not allowed out of the case. And I had suggested think I sent you an email or something, that maybe that could be clarified. So, you know, if if you I don't know why we're there if we're not counsel of record, But that would be very helpful so we just don't have, like, our contractors and lawyers from all over the place being dragged into cases that they are not counsel of record on. And, you know, we have enough problems with just having enough lawyers to do what we are statutorily required and constitutionally required to do without being held in cases that we have no role in. So this bill gives a however it turns out, how you beat the language into what you want it to look like, this might be an appropriate place to clarify that issue.

[Speaker 0]: So I would think that would be appropriate probably more so on the miscellaneous bill. Could you shoot that email again but copy Eric Fitzpatrick and me on that? And then we can look and put it there.

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: Can do that.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Because Eric's keeping track of what we're trying to put in the miscellaneous film.

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: I did notice something. Since I'm here, And I am a lawyer, and I've done this stuff for a little while. What page On page nine, I know that the bill has a particular title, and so it would probably assume. But I guess it's important for the defendant general's office to be involved in this. But a lot of what we're talking about is, again, subject matter that occurs after we're out of the case. So We're happy to be on the study committee, or I'm happy to be or have somebody on it. You see a need?

[Speaker 0]: I mean, sure. You can

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: You know, the only reason see, there's what the law says, and there was is what happens in crashes. We're supposed to be out of these cases. Courts don't want us out of these cases. We used to handle all of this from soup to nuts. You know? And until you got the we litigate or negotiate the orders of non hospitalization or hospitalization and all of the conditions and the like. And after that point, legal aid would come in, and they would do the after the orders were already created. And I was five by the time back when I was a real lawyer, for the first fifteen years of my career, I used to do these things somewhat regularly and usually in, like, very was in private practice, so if someone was hiring me, they were very serious charges, attempted murders, and and and that sort of thing. So it wasn't you know, these weren't disorderly conducts we were talking about. And we would craft these with certain goals in mind. Legal aid has a different way of approaching these cases than the lawyers who've been in my shop and the lawyers I think the criminal defense lawyers look at it differently. I'm not saying they're right or they're wrong. It's just different. So maybe it's better to have both. Maybe it was better to have us still on the committee. I don't know. As things stand right now, I know there's consultation that goes on. I'm just I'm just wondering. That's all. I'm just kind of raising the issue. The other thing is in the at the beginning of section six, it refers to Department of Mental Health shall report the Committee on Judiciary, broadly wrong, on improving victims' rights and experiences in forensic cases in Vermont. And you mean forensic mental health cases. Correct? Because there's all kinds of forensic forensic cases. And the vast majority of forensic cases, by the way, are not mental health cases. They're other types. I just wanna make sure that we're that we have a focus here that somebody can not, like, expand to you know, I've been on these committees before where if it's not very specific, now we start running into branches, branches, branches, and things.

[Speaker 0]: So I think that particular section six, if that is gonna survive, and I'm not sure because I keep on having people saying we have enough, we've studied this enough, let's just do something, that would probably be in conjunction with S one hundred ninety three and the forensic facility and such. So so it's the kind of the scope of what the forensic system is being set up in January would kind of guide the business if we're gonna have this.

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: I was gonna suggest to you anticipate, I guess, or you read my mind, which is the the forensic facility bill should not stand outside of the context of view. This is going should be combined into some sort of comprehensive omnibus sort of bill regarding mental health. So all of the issues are not spread over various bills. My office, again, for the last five, six years, as this has become a more of a hot button issue and we've seen more of these forensic cases, has always supported the establishment of a forensic facility, because we lost it. It wasn't always this way. In 2011, when the flood flooding occurred, we lost our forensic facility, and we've never recovered from that. And so we have this disjointed, dispersed sort of county by county, facility by facility, depending upon what resources are available, approach to addressing these cases at a time when we're having more and more of them for for various reasons. And I'm not sure exactly what all of those reasons are. But it's to me, this all starts with a forensic facility Right. Where we can have, like, consistent where you know who you're feeling with. You know? When it back back when I was doing these cases, I knew every doctor at the Vermont State Hospital. I knew who I was dealing with. I could call them up and say, hey, is this client there? What do you think? I know you did the evaluation. And it was very know, it doesn't mean the issues were easy, but it was easy to inform both sides, whether prosecutor or defendant, about what you needed to do, what were the issues in the case, how were you gonna resolve it. Now it's like, every, you know, every county and and, you know, we have people doing evaluations who've never stepped foot in Vermont. They they aren't they don't you know, they're you know, these these tele evaluations are under I understand they're necessary because we don't have enough people here to do it, but they're a nightmare. And they're very disjointed. They are very inconsistent in the quality that we're providing. And, you know, when you start with disjointed evaluations, you end up with disjointed recommendations regarding orders from hospitalization or orders of hospitalization by people who don't know what the heck's going on here. And, you know, we're crafting borders based on shaky foundation. These issues are much bigger. You know, the issues that victims suffer in these are born out of the shaky foundation that we have in this forensic mental health system that we've kind of cobbled together post two thousand eleven hurricane. I mean, you know, there were a couple of different storms that were very bloody. In any event, you know, that's I'm just I just wanna make sure I didn't miss anything here. We obviously have no position whatsoever on who's supposed to be. But but But somebody should notify the victim of something. Right. You know? And and

[Speaker 0]: So I don't think it would be fair to you or the committee to move on to six twenty six, particularly since we have more testimony scheduled this week, and, hopefully, I can get you in then instead. So we'll reach out and find out when we can be very

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: happy to talk about that one as well.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. So Tuesday, Wednesday, we'll And again, I will

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: I will give you a very this will be the preview. I don't really have much to say about that either.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Well, it could be.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: No. But I

[Speaker 0]: wanna make sure that so many people I

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: I talked about my you know, some general policy stuff that I think is really important here, but it's not directly relevant to the bill. That one had the six twenty six has even much less relevant stress than even this case. But we'll catch you because I want to have some of the

[Speaker 0]: other people who have to leave right now to hear your testimonies, Ross.

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: All right. It's fine. Unless

[Speaker 0]: you only need, like, ten minutes, then I'll stay.

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: I mean, I think I only need ten minutes, but I don't know what happens here. Sometimes I think I have ten minutes and you guys have another fifty.

[Speaker 0]: All right, so let's reschedule for next week because we may have questions. We have had a lot of questions on that particular bill. Not yet. Really appreciate you stopping over here.

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: Nothing from the clerk of the committee. That one question. Nothing. Nothing at all.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Just taking it all in for right now.

[Speaker 0]: Think you I'm on a

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: path. Alright.

[Speaker 0]: So I appreciate thank you very much, Matt, and our other witnesses. And we're