Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Welcome back to the Health Judiciary Committee. To continue the testimony regarding the pre trial supervision program, we'll have Nick Vance join us. Thank you for being here. Thank you for being here.

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Thank you for having me. For the record, Kim McVana's Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, what would be most helpful for the committee at this point?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think hearing how refile supervision has been working or where the challenges have been, and then we can talk a little bit about where we should go from here a little bit because as Angela mentioned this morning, yesterday in discussing the accountability court, the 3B docket, it became clear that maybe pretrial supervision as we have it set up now is not necessarily the most helpful. It sounded very helpful that DOC and probation was involved early on not necessarily with individuals in the program. So the bigger picture, but also want to understand, we're trying to get to the point of making pretrial supervision useful, so with all that, whatever you want to say, really. But that's kind of the ultimate goal. Sure.

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Well, just a reminder for committee members who are not on joint justice, who heard a lot of testimony throughout the summer and the fall, the pretrial supervision program is currently a pilot program. It started in New Orleans. And then over the summer, when feedback came in that not many folks were engaging with it or being referred to it or being involved in it. The decision was made to move to Chittenden County. And then not at exactly the same time, but quickly thereafter, the accountability docket started to get started or get formed. And the overlap of the five or more dockets meshed those two together. But they weren't meant to be meshed together. It's just that Venn diagram mesh. So I think the big picture issue with pretrial supervision, the way it's designed right now, is that we all have to remember that this fits into our bail statute. Our conditions of release fail pretrial consideration. So if somebody comes in for arraignment on their charge and the court is deciding for public safety, do we need certain conditions to be placed on this person that they can't be in contact with someone or can't drive a car or can't drink? What do we need to do over the next six, twelve months before this case is settled to keep the public safe if this person is out in the community? If this person is a flight risk, do we need to set sail to help ensure that they're here? And if so, at what cost? So that all still has to be considered. And I think that's the rub right now with pretrial supervision that, as written, to qualify, so to speak, for it to be considered for it, you have to either have a violation for a condition of release. So you're already out on conditions of release, and you violated a condition. That's one pathway to being potentially part of this supervision. Or you have five or more open dockets. And not exclusive, but most of those folks tend to fall into the misdemeanors, what we've been referring to as those repeat offenders on the lower level. Unless they're reaching the point where bail is being set for some reason, for many of those individuals, pretrial supervision is not going to be the least restrictive set of conditions to have them out in community. So we think from the defense side, why would they want to agree to this? If they were potentially going to be detained or a twenty four hour curfew or something far more restrictive, then pretrial supervision may look interesting and be something that you need to agree to. So I think that who we're trying to watch during pretrial supervision. And I think that watch, so to speak, is important not to confuse pretrial services with pretrial supervision. The idea of pretrial supervision, my understanding, is that Department of Corrections is involved and that there is essentially a mini probation officer filling that role of keeping an eye on Representative Dolan and making a note if you agree to go to certain meetings, that you're going to those meetings and reminding you that you have a court date next week, that connective tissue role. And I think right now, just who would fall into that? Current structure, most would not agree to that. And then those who would be say, I was arguing for someone to be detained with a hold without bail and didn't want to hold them but wanted them on strict supervision in the community, as you heard from CSG, Department of Corrections does not have the resources right now to have that sort of supervision. You don't have to have a person that otherwise would be detained on phone monitoring. You would want them on electronic monitoring. And if the DOC was able to do that, then that would be something that would be of interest, I think, to both defense and the state. So I think that's the big issue of why it's not being utilized. I don't think we've quite found who we really are looking to supervise and then have it structured in a way that would not know folks, that it would be an advantage to someone to be part of the program.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So just to be clear, so the defense or defendant has to agree to be subject to the

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Well, they have to be order. I mean, it's an order from the court. Commander General Valerio testified yesterday in house corrections. And I know if he'll be here, the defense is going to argue, again, per our fail statute, what's the least restrictive set of conditions. And so again, depending on the facts and circumstances in front of you, pretrial supervision is not going to be least restrictive for someone who would otherwise be out on a don't contact representative Rachelson in the court. Take the supervision, though they might need a lot of support, and everyone can see that. And that's a pretrial services piece. We might want to connect them with a whole lot. We might all know they're going to have trouble getting to court and remembering. And if we want to wrap around those folks, that's fine. But why would they want to be on pretrial supervision where, as the Defender General said yesterday, they're pending their trial, they're presumed innocent at this point, and they're potentially setting themselves up for getting violations of conditions or release. They have more conditions, more things that they need to do. Potentially, that's going to lead to more problems. Whereas with the accountability docket, those are all looking to resolve cases. That's why there was engagement from the defendants. They were resolving their cases, not being supervised waiting for that case to resolve. And so there's a different level of engagement there.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So it's not necessarily just as simple well, let me back up. So right now, or looking back when we set this up, we were concerned about there being too many people going to pretrial for presumably. So we set it at five dockets and somebody who's violated conditions of release. Or It's It's a And it ends up that there are maybe a couple up in Orange in that pile. There's only like I heard I thought yesterday it was like three or something like that in Chittenden County. So that's not the problem.

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I have not heard that they've been flooded.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. We're not being flooded. But is it and I'm also hearing that it's not as simple as just lifting those restrictions and leaving it to much more to the discretion of the prosecutor, defense counsel, or court, that that's not necessarily going to make it a more useful program to pay it.

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Well, there is one version of this bill that strikes out PCR in the five or more dockets. And we would agree to leave it to just the consideration of poses the risk of non appearance at court hearings, the risk of flight, risk of endangering the public. I don't think we need that five or more. I would agree with that. But I think it's just important to remember that, again, this program falls within the larger analysis that happens at arraignment. And so being able to think through how this supervision program within the conditions of release, who it would benefit, who we would want in it, and then thinking through that, what's the plus for them, so to speak? And again, in my mind, if it's the least restrictive of being detained, that makes perfect sense. But if it's for folks who otherwise wouldn't have this much supervision, there has to be, again, an argument for why the court can impose this. Order it.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I'm curious why, specifically with the VCRs. So it's least restrictive, which also reasonably will mitigate risk of flight. So for the VCRs, we had a bunch of them. This isn't a release valve for people that they're maybe the state's seeking more bail, trying to we've had him on conditions. He's violating the conditions, violating conditions a bunch of times. And now we want this much bail. The defense couldn't be like, well, what if we had him on this supervision instead? Just wondering why that's not a way that it's or maybe is the way it's being used, and I'm just not understanding.

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: No, I think there's two things there. Yes, if somebody's accumulating cases and depending on the cases and again, for bail, it has to be a risk of flight. So I can be violating my conditions of release, but showing up to court every time and I'm no risk of flight. So fail is not going to be shouldn't be set the way our state is structured. But say I'm accumulating cases that now my potential consequence is now starting to add up five years, ten years, fifteen years, then there's an argument for risk of flight that could be made. If fail could be ordered, that is when I think this program don't set bail. I'm not going be able to make it. But pretrial supervision, then I could see that's where that argument would make sense, and it would be the least restrictive. Otherwise, detaining someone who can't make

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: bail. Right. So it could be the, how about the individuals who are just not showing up? Do there's a good argument to hold them or to impose bail because they're not showing up and that's part of the risk of flight, and instead we do pretrial supervision where they'll help this person show up as part of a visit.

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Possibly, but again, failure to appear could be a factor in considering that. But it isn't an exact, you're a flight risk because you failed to appear. It's possible, again, depending on why they didn't appear. But yes, I think the point being, when you're teetering over to could bail be set, then pretrial supervision would be least restrictive if you're not being told on bail. So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: perhaps one thing that can be done to make this a more useful program is to take away the current restrictions on who can go there and allow really the parties to figure that out in conjunction with the court. So that may be one positive step that we can do with this. It doesn't answer my kind of bigger question of where's the most beneficial place for DOC to appear? Where and when should they show up to help out? And I think the accountability court suggests early, before when somebody is pretrial still, figuring out if it's going be probation and what the treatment is and such. But that's not this I don't think we can wedge that concept into this program. That might just be a matter of DOC having the resources to do that, maybe. I'm just kind of thinking out loud here. So one of the other recommendations CSG. Well, was having a more streamlined way for violations of conditions of someone who's being supervised getting back before the court. Do you know that issue? Yes. Could you comment on how we might be able to approach that, if that really is a problem that we need to deal with, I guess, with another way of looking at it?

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yes. Say oh, state attorneys, we disagree with CSG's recommendation. We understand it from behavioral science perspective. You want to have immediate reaction to someone. That's, of course, fantastic. Issue is there's a few issues here. On pretrial supervision, it's part of your conditions of release. This whole program falls within your conditions of release. Those are court orders. If you don't follow those court orders, that can be charged as a crime. The probation officer permanent corrections, we'll call supervising officer, so not confused with probation. Supervising officer for pretrial supervision cannot file a criminal charge. If the idea is I think this is the suggestion that essentially the supervising officer can go right to the court to say, Joe isn't showing up for treatment. And it's, I think, written in your draft, that the supervising officer could motion the court to change the conditions or basically to check-in that they need to have more conditions or stricter conditions. I think that's the idea. You'll hear from other witnesses, but the court is not going to, I do not believe, in Vermont unilaterally with the supervising officer's motion change conditions and release. Was an order made with all parties present at the arraignment. We're going to all need to be present for that conversation. So even if the supervising officer filed something with the court, we still need to all get into court to discuss this. So I think the idea was that this would streamline things, move things faster. I don't believe that's going to have that impact. I think we're still going to need a court hearing. We're still going to need defense attorney, the defendant, state's attorney, prosecutor to be present to have this discussion, to go back and forth on what is appropriate. So I still think it needs to go through the prosecutor or, at the very least, if they wish to file it with the court and the prosecutor at the same time. What they're filing is not a charge. It's information about how the person is doing on the conditions. But we don't think it's going to speed things up, which I think is what at CSG, suggesting.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any other ideas of how to speed it up that would require changing the language in this engine?

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: The only universe and again, other states have different structures where this works rather than us. If, again, because it was the least restrictive and the defendant agreed and so this isn't just I mean, it's an order from the court, but it's something that the defendant has agreed to be part of a program that has a whole different set of rules, then maybe there's a different pathway where the court would be comfortable changing things without the parties present. But I have a hard time imagining that here. But you'll hear from the judiciary on that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. Go ahead.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Just sorry, one other clarifying question. If you currently practice, if you don't comply with your pretrial supervision conditions, is that just considered a VCR?

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Well, again, we're a small pool, so I don't have exact examples. But the idea would be and the way the statute's written, it's broken down into two say let me just make sure, because now I've read three different versions. So on page four, and this is current law, pretrust down on line 11. There's court imposed program conditions. So those would be part of your conditions of release. And then on line 14

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: Which document are you looking at again?

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: This is H529 per bill, page four. Then it says department imposed administrative conditions. And the idea, like the example given there often is if there's a court order that you're on electronic monitoring as part of your pretrial supervision, but you charge your electric monitor, that's a department imposed administrative condition, like keep your monitor charged.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Distinction.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: And so that would not be

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: So that would not be a VCR, theoretically.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. I'm just thinking of ways, yeah, how to see it. If it was always a VCR, then that would prompt maybe different conditions or request for bail.

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: And here's the thing. We understand it's not that these need to be VCRs. They don't need to be charges. But I think the idea that the supervising officer would communicate with the court, even if it's a department, they can say, hey, we need to change this. It's hard to imagine that the court is going to write back and be like, Okay, without bringing in the defense attorney and the prosecutor to discuss? Because essentially, you're changing the conditions of the program. But again, you'll hear from the judiciary on that, but it's hard to imagine.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes. This may or may not be helpful, but I'm curious. Do you feel like this is a useful tool for us to be considering and looking at knowing that we just talked about the accountability docket and like, it seems like maybe we want to put our resources and attention in this, but then maybe I'm missing something. Maybe it makes sense to have this tool refined and available. But as I'm hearing this, I'm like, sounds like we're just trying to rework this completely. And we have this other tool that has proven that it works. So do you feel like this is a good investment?

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I think wise to look at this and at the accountability docket resource wise as far as this population of the misdemeanor repeat offender folks and see what is having the greater impact. Again, from our department's perspective, if this was a robust supervision of folks who we

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: would

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: consider higher risk in the community that we would otherwise want detained, and that this was of such a nature that they were being so supervised in the community that we felt that they did not that detention wasn't necessary, that would be a more interesting conversation at a place of resources. But if it's working with the same folks who would be working in that other model, then I think that's a conversation of of whether this is because what we heard yesterday was that the accountability docket model was moving so quickly that we didn't need the supervision. Nobody needed this because they're like, well, actually, I'm now already connected with services and I'm resolving my case in two weeks, so I don't need this. This, I think, when designed, was when the cases are taking six months, twelve months, eighteen months, and we wanted to have that wraparound for those folks.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay, that's helpful. I feel like that gives decision points for us to consider.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Where do we want to go? Right, right. So I'm trying to, I'll get the other second. I was thinking whether this was a program through which we could try to expand what was done in the accountability court. I don't think it is. I think that's a separate kind of conversation as far as DOC involvement very early on, they were there, a whole team approach there. But is this a tool that could still be used in certain situations? Let's at least lift the restrictions. That's one part. Then I guess if you're talking about this heightened level of supervision, is there something else that we need to do in here to empower DOC to have that heightened supervision? Or is the supervision sufficient that we have laid out in here for those higher level individuals, and if we're taking away those restrictions? And I don't know what the answer to that question is particularly. Do you have a view of whether you need to add layers of supervision if you're talking about somebody, like you mentioned, who could otherwise be held without bail?

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: No, I think the court has, I mean, through our current statute, the court

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: would be sent to pretrial supervision in that scenario under

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: the current statute. Yes, with

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: the exception of lifting the five or more docket or

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the Yeah, just lifting Yes, those

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: nothing would prevent being able to order that proposed provisions and Department of Corrections is involved, and then all the other conditions that the court want to impose, so

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: public safety. So the supervisor, we have more to monitor in that kind of situation. Angela?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I think the way that I'm trying to think about this is that, and I wonder if, I sort of just said this, think. So I want to make sure that I'm understanding correctly. Don't I would like to avoid duplicative services, systems, programs, what have you. And we don't wanna leave gaps. So in thinking about this, though, something you said just helped me frame it a little better in my mind. But I also want us to be thinking about what we actually want. And if what we actually want is for cases to be resolved faster, then we're looking at more something along the lines of the accountability docket and how that process worked. I think that's what we actually want. And it's feeling more and more to me like pretrial services, and this is where my question comes in, was kind of like a band aid because we weren't resolving cases fast enough. So I just want to understand from your perspective, is that not true? Would it be fair to say that there is a need for this type of supervision done well for a certain percentage of the population who won't qualify for any sort of expedited process that we maintain? Well, I think there's two things.

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: This pilot program currently and the accountability docket was a short term pilot program.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So, so given that, right, so that's which It's like choose your own adventure. So which way should we go?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: You're not going to get an answer.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I would recommend both the tools on how we are approaching. And I think that this might fit certain individuals. The question is, and this is more for POC and administration, is this where they wanna put their resources? Is having six supervisors or whatever number around the state when there's only a half a dozen people who actually fit in this, does that make sense? So that's, I think, almost a resource issue. Or do they want to put that money towards having probation officers at the courthouse, pretrial? So I think it's almost a, this is a tool, but where do you want to put your resources and money.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right. And so I guess I'm asked from the essay's point of view, what

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: do you

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: want us to do?

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: That's a good question. I want you to do all sorts of things, but we're out of

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: the big question point. So use your imagination, feel free,

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: build Kim's world. So Where's the while I think it's important, and I was not here in 2024, but I've heard a lot about how this pre child supervision came into being and the criteria that was put around it, that was all sort of the end of the session. And I think this is a great moment that the landscape has changed a bit. We do have some interesting data from the fall. And I think it is a really great time to step back and say the big question of who I think there is a role for an idea of an because right now, nobody's supervised. If you're out on conditions of release, you're not being supervised. You're expected to come to court and then not do bad things in between, and nobody is checking in on you. And there are individuals who could greatly use that. But there are, in my mind, two very different populations. There are repeat offenders who have a whole host of issues, and we'll just put it under the umbrella of executive functioning, could really use that scaffolding around them. And that makes a tremendous amount of sense. And if there isn't a rapid way to deal with their case, that makes great sense to keep something like this for that case that's six months, twelve months out. That's one population. The other population who have all sorts of host of issues as well are the folks who, from the state's perspective, we would deem highly dangerous for the public and are right on that edge of should they be detained free trial, or could they be in the community? And I can think of a perfect example. Aggravated domestic assault is actually charged as an attempted murder. Person fired two shots into the car of his ex wife while she was in the car. And I argued for a hold without bail. And

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: it was

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: a very long argument, a lot of back and forth. And then the judge did a very nuanced surgical carving to create conditions of release so that the person could be out but as restrictive as possible. If there had been a pretrial supervision with electric monitoring, I would have asked for that. If we weren't going to hold the person, I would have wanted a whole lot of restrictions. What that person did have was a curfew but for work, couldn't go to certain areas of the county, had to call a responsible adult who we had to phone check-in with twice a day. It was almost like having a supervising officer, except it was a family member. So in my mind, yes, there is a place for pretrial supervision, but we really need to take this moment to think about who and then how DOC could resource that, because those are very different resources, being the connective tissue and the check-in person and providing the connection to services versus regular check ins as far as physically, where are you and monitoring someone's electronic monitor. That's very different. But I do think this is a wonderful time to discuss this and to think about the resources.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. So what I'm at least hearing is we use the restrictions so there's more discretion on who can go there. We obviously have more discussions that we have to have with DOC and others. And we'll hear from Matt Valerio as well at his viewpoints.

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: And yes, and just to drive home, don't go around the prosecutor to talk to the court. That's correct. Opposed to that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I forgot that message as well. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. I'll turn to Jack Casoleman. Thank you for being here, judge.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: My pleasure. Thank you. Thomas O'Nee, chief superior judge. I will ask representative Goslant, what am I about to say? All of it is so new. Right. You keep asking the big question. Is this something we should pursue? Is it something we should look at differently? We've had it in place, and it was a pilot up in the Orleans Court. How often was it used? Twice. Twice. We've had it as part of the pilot docket. How often was it used?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Like three times.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: Oh, the trend is on the way up.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Three percent. Out of how many cases there?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: There's 100 and some people.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: Quite a few. Okay. So, I say that because the idea of supervision, if we look at the federal government model and the criminal justice system, they have pretrial supervision. They have less people, more resources for doing it. And this was when this bill came up. This is my position was, it's a policy decision, but if you're trying to create a federal model, this isn't it. This is something, it seems like the goal was to get people resources and to have, in my recollection, the testimony downstairs and here was, we want to have the probation officers be able to assist people who can't help themselves getting into the treatment, identifying locations and identifying treatment.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And getting into court.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: And getting to court too, reminders. Interestingly enough, what does that sound like? The pilot document. So, what we know is that when people have someone who's going to help them get resources, who is going to maybe give them reminders, or we set it at a date where they're gonna know show up on Thursday, every Thursday, whatever it may be. We know that that effectuates part of the goal here of what the pretrial supervision program is. And that is to help people get the assistance they need to better their lives and reduce recidivism. It doesn't give you supervision because we don't have anyone supervising. Years ago, what would happen in some communities like the Rutland police or state police would sometimes go out. They'd look on the wall, I guess, see who had conditions and who had curfews, and they'd go start knocking on doors. And that was pretty good because it was unexpected and it did make a difference. And so, having someone there who has the ability to check on and monitor, there's a benefit to that. And so, that aspect of this does have a purpose. But the lack of utilization and the recognition that we now have from the pilot docket, that's a policy question for legislature is, look, we haven't used it, but boy, if we put the money here, we have resources that people are using. We've moved through several 100 dockets, hundreds of dockets, a number of individuals who early reports are coming back saying that the individuals have benefited from that. And the community has benefited from that. And so, when you're asking the big question, where's the money better spent? That's a policy decision. But when you look at the data, it's tough to decide in some ways because one project was never used. Does that give you your answer? Possibly that why wasn't it used? Nobody bought onto it. Same as home detention. We keep seeing that. The numbers are always hovering, five or six. And there's nuances to home detention as to why that's not used. Oftentimes when someone files for it, the parties resolve the cases. So, it's not always the same five or six people. But I point that out because there may be a very good reason to have this program because there's nothing else that can replicate it. In other words, if there's no one else who can supervise, you would need something like this to provide the supervision if that's what you're looking for. But if all you're looking for is someone to help identify resources, help people find the resources, show up for court, give reminders, The pilot docket showed that there's a different way to do it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That doesn't necessarily have to be part of the program. That's just where the resources You don't have to legislate that.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: No, you don't have to legislate

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to get the resources. Exactly.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: Have to legislate the resources somehow, because when we look at these programs and we look at the resources we need, yes, we have pilot dockets and we're gonna try to expand them. But I think as I said yesterday, this is what every case should happen. Everyone coming into our courts, whether you're on your first charge or your fifth or your tenth, should have the availability of resources so that we can help you move ahead and get the help you need.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We don't want the people on day one to come back with five charges someday. The goal is to resolve that case in a timely manner, in an appropriate manner, and not have them come back. That enhances their lives and public safety. So do you think the restrictions that we have for who can be placed in the program is playing a big role? If he eliminated that and left it more to the discretion of prosecutor's defense of the court, that maybe this would be used more? Mean, should the pilot extend? Did you think of that out?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: If you're gonna open up the pool of who can be in, I would think that there is a greater chance of it expanding. But the question is, is it going to expand? I have a crystal ball. But what I think we heard a bit ago was that timing. Why would somebody wanna go into this program if they're gonna resolve the case quicker? And again, isn't the idea to resolve the cases? And so, does the program bring with it the potential for actually extending something that would have possibly been resolved sooner? And that's a potential. But again, there's a balance that the legislature has to decide on. That is, do we really need someone, DOC, to be helping with the resources? And if we do need them to be helping with the resources, do we also need them to be out monitored? And if the answer is yes, then the next question is, is this the way that that needs to be structured? Could you, for instance, take the resource piece and what do we know about DOC? What we heard, I believe yesterday, and I didn't hear a testimony today from people about what DOC has been doing, but DOC was an integral part of the pilot docket. DOC was at the table helping. And I think it was Zachary Harvey who said, when you had this It might have been in a meeting, so he might not have said this on the committee. But when you had DOC there, in the old days, would happen is you'd say, Well, okay, let's do this plea. What's gonna happen? Well, I'm doing X, Y, and Z for treatment. And your attorney would look at you and the state's attorney would say, Well, we're not sure if DOC is gonna let you keep doing that. It might have to go to a different treatment provider. We don't know if they're qualified, accepted, whatever it may be. But DOC was at the table in Chittenden. And they were able to say, Okay, we'll take it from here. We're going to continue and keep that momentum going. And so, DOC does it have to look like this for DOC to have that involvement? In Rutland, DOC used to walk next door and basically have one officer sitting. I mean, this is another court this happens too. And they have one officer sitting there who served as that liaison. And they would say, Hey, can you check? And they would go and check. And if someone doesn't show up, they would go and make a phone call and say, Have you heard from this person lately? Things like that. It worked. And it didn't require this type of structure. It required the communication and the time and the resources. And the question about having supervision, the person who helps with the resources have to be the supervisor? That's a question for you to decide too. Could DOC have individuals who work for them, who is structured throughout the state? Their job is to monitor conditions of release. They just, okay, here's people who we're concerned about. They come over to the court or a state's attorney or someone highlights them and they go out and say, okay, we're gonna go check on these conditions for people. Is there a law enforcement function for that? So, think that the real challenge for the legislature is you have a process in place that hasn't really been used. Do you try to keep tinkering with it to say, Well, we're gonna do this, we're gonna do that. Is that gonna fix why it wasn't used? And now you have a pilot docket that shows things that do work and have been used, and you have to make those tough decisions as to which direction to go in. And I look forward to your answer.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I think we really need to have further discussions with the Department of Corrections and the administration. There are two roles here. Liaison to the prosecutor defense in the pretrial and what works so well in the accountability docket, or the DOC monitoring of conditions or some of them monitoring. Those seem to be two separate things. And maybe we really need to get guidance more so from the administration. They're both

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: very important aspects of our criminal justice system. And the question is, again, is what was put together, has experience now taught us that maybe there's a different way to look at it that might break things up. I think the pilot docket was something that I will say through a monkey wrench in, but I think it really highlighted that if we can get the resources to people and get them moving on and have DOC at the table helping out, we're gonna get more timely and better results.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So we have more testimony we need to take and try to figure itself. So thank you very much. Thank you. Do you have

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: a question though for- I have a question for you. Okay.

[Kim (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: And I apologize if you already shared this,

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: but so this bill is in corrections?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I don't really call it a system.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: We keep referring to a bill. Yeah,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: well, we did did refer to a bill that we actually have in here. Also corrections is working on a committee bill and H721, the administration bill, there's also some provisions in there. And all of that was done in part based on CSG's recommendations and before the lessons from the pilot. We're at a different place now than any of those three bills, in my view. And it's kind of a bigger discussion. I mean, one thing I think is if we are going to move ahead and keep pretrial supervision on the books, that we lift the restrictions and that's all that we do to it. Then it's really DNC deciding they want to put their resources. Do they want to put the resources in for a liaison, which seemed to work very well? I don't know that we need to legislate that, but that's further discussion. Or do they want to put money towards having some supervisors under this? I think it's a conversation among us.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: We're gonna coordinate to have all. I just don't want us to have competing No, no, no.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I will be talking to Chair Evans. We are not landing yet, but we're at discussion. I'm appearing there at noon. Alright.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: On the same topic.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: On their committee vote. Yes. This topic. What would you like me to tell

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We're

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: actually having a meeting next week on that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: The state's attorneys involved in the Excellent. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we are adjourned until one level.