Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: And now.

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: Oh, alright. So we

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: are back in senate judiciary. It's February 20, and we're on s one eighty six, and we have the defender general here with us.

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: Yes. I'm Matt Valerio. I'm the defender general. The two ways I can kinda go about this. One is I can go through a bunch of thoughts about why my office doesn't like this so much, but I almost wanna jump to the conclusion more and just give you a suggestion before I talk about the bill specifically.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: I think that sounds good. I'm wondering if your conclusion might be the same suggestions we've got, but so I don't yeah. That's

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: Yeah. I I don't know what your suggestions were, but there's a there's a group of juvenile justice stakeholders who get together periodically. It's been in existence since 2016. It includes DCF, DOC, confederate general, state attorneys and sheriffs, attorney general's office, the court, victims advocates, some other interested parties. And, typically, this kind of proposal is something that would be looked at by that group. It's not statutorily created, but that group was created around 2016. It was convened to deal with, like, the raise the age stuff. And but it deals with other things somewhat regularly when they get together. Lindy Boudreaux at DCF, I guess, is the person who sort of convenes it and gets everybody together. Marshall suggests to me that this is the kind of thing that would typically be reviewed by that group. And that it's the kind of thing that it is and should be because it gets everybody in the room together. They talk about it and try to figure out you know, one of the things that they that I read it, and I'm like, what are they trying what's what's what problem or issue is trying to be solved here? I'm unaware of the problem if there is a problem. And so I asked Marshall, do you know? And he didn't know. And so it would might be good rather than we I can go through the all the reasons why maybe this isn't such a good idea, but that group may have more insight than I would. And I I see that you're the the you're the one of the sponsor of the bill. I'm sure you could tell me what you had in mind. Yeah. How however, the maybe you should tell that committee. And then, you know, groups. Whatever. Group of people who get together and talk about things. Because they have all all the various interests that they have. And, you know, so that, you know, in conclusion, to start everything, that's where I think rather than me just saying, now these are the things we don't seem to like about it, And we have them report back, like, November 1 or October 1. I don't think it's one of those things that's gonna take, you know, six months of deliberation. But if you get all of those folks in a room talking about it and understanding the issue, then it's better than me just, I think, going through the details of this and, you know, why we think it might not be the best idea. Because they might be might be able to address whatever the issue is either in this way or in another way, And it becomes a consensus bill as much as anything.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: Yeah. So what I can tell you is this came from a recommendation based on something I experienced and a few other defense attorneys in the have experienced where a situation arises where somebody is charged with felony, let's say an ag assault, and they want to at the consulting with their attorney, accept a plea of a simple assault or disorderly conduct. And they want to wrap that up in the criminal division, but then you get the plea all set up, you go in there and the judge says, this can't happen in this division, figure something else. That's the problem that it's trying to address. The recommendation that we got earlier was to make it so that this would only apply to a lesser included offense and that there's a nexus of conduct. So that somebody who is in that ag assault, the simple assault situation isn't also going to have other charges that are completely unrelated hanging over their head in some way by using this language. And then there was a technical recommendation made by Kim that I don't think I'd be able to rearticulate in the same way, but to cover one issue. Don't know if you wanna repeat again what that was.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I'm just for the record, Kim McManus, Department of State's Journey. And sheriffs, I just noted in the general that the way it's worded could be read as you could only plea to an offense under them, the one that you were brought into court for, and I just didn't want it's if the idea is to give the juvenile and their defense attorneys some more choice in where how they're resolving the case, I didn't want that to unintentionally take away potentially that pleading to the charge defense might be part of the resolution.

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: This is actually interesting because we've been here before. There was a period of time during, like, the Dean administration when it ended when I was very first in the country general, the appointed me first. And two in five males between the age of 16 and 25 were under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. Why? Because there was a we had furnishing and possession of Mount Beveridge as a crime that was on the books at the time. And the legislature gave a choice, basically, to go to diversion and do a program they had set up at diversion for these folks, people. Or you could say, I'm going to plead to the criminal charge. And a large majority of them said, I don't care about the criminal charge. I'll just take the conviction. And, unfortunately, that also ended up in a suspension of their driver's license, which then led to a ballooning of DLS charges. The whole point of this is not like what happened there. Juveniles, when they're making these decisions, It's not so much the more difficult crimes, the more severe crimes, but it's an easy way out to say, I'll just plead the criminal charge. And it's not even in their best interest, but they just see it as it's quick. It's over. I don't have to screw around with conversion and do the the, you know, the things that I need for, like, substance abuse education or whatever in that particular case. But it had these collateral consequences in the system where it is particularly for the more minor charges, but that it was easier just to eat the misdemeanor without any regard for the collateral consequences as opposed to having the case you have to do some work and not and not end up with a charge that ending up in in the juvenile court on in this situation or in that case going to going to diversion where down the road they wouldn't have a criminal record, they wouldn't have their license suspended, they would have been, you know, kind of good to go, but it had this ballooning effect on the system. And we got this whole group of young males, who over a five to ten year period during the Dean administration, remember he was around for eleven and a half years. And it all came about in the early part, 1991, I think, when we changed, and Senator Norris would probably remember this, we changed the DUI laws. That's when we reduced, like, the DAC from point one zero to point zero eight. We created these little suspension procedures. We did a bunch of different things at that time and at the same time it was that. And when juveniles are trying to make these decisions, they wanna think about they think about historically, and they did in that case, how do I get this over with as quickly as possible to get the hell out of here, which is not always in their interest, legally or personally, but they don't think that far ahead. So, you know, one of the concerns about the bill just as a matter of policy is that it allows, it puts that decision making in the hands of people who are not really mature enough to make that decision. And traditionally, judges make that decision. You know, they decide which way it's gonna go. So this is part of the discussion that, like I said, without going through the the details of the bill, the discussion of the policy is a is something that I think this group of stakeholders might have some legitimate input on. And I'm not saying it's the wrong thing necessarily to do, but there might be safeguards to it or, you know, a a judge might have to make specific findings to agree that whatever is going to be put in the criminal case is, you know, kind of in the interests of either resolving the case, this juvenile, that it doesn't do any harm to the juvenile, those kinds of things. Criminal records as, you know, in our state, we do have ceiling and expungement that seem to possibly be under attack at at some level. And, you know, getting a criminal record for even for something minor can have some pretty severe consequences down the road even if you can't foresee them at the time. So, you know, the the suggestion really of the office is as it sits, they're not too keen on it, and they didn't understand what the problem was. I understand what you're saying now. But our experience with making those choices in the way that, you know, in the past, and I've actually I I did talk about that. It's such a huge number. I I was stunned that, like, forty percent of people ended up on probation with Department of Corrections because they they picked up violations along the way with these minor charges. In any event, you know, it's kinda one of these things where once you're in the system, it's hard to get out of the system until you hit your early forties. And that and we followed a big bump, like this kind of lump of cases that were the dean administration alcohol and d u d DLS cases that were just flowing through the system as people picked up other violations along the way. And a lot of what, like, justice reinvestment one was about was ways to prevent that and keep those people out of the system. This might be kind of going back to has the potential to do that, but I'm I'm not gonna tell you sitting here today that the stakeholders committee, if they took a look at it, would come to the same result. They might say, well, there's maybe we tweak this a bit, or there's a way to do this that satisfies all of those interests and particularly the best interests of those individuals making the decision at the time. So I

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: guess comment and maybe a question. Mean, I I get where you're coming from with, you know, juveniles wanting to wrap things up and move on. And I think also often applies to adults too sometimes,

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: And the lawyers.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: What was that?

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: And the lawyers.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. Yeah. But, you know, I mean,

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: in this situation though, at least in theory that juvenile is gonna be getting counsel as to whether or not knowing the ag assault route in criminal court or knowing the simple assault route in criminal court, you know, which one is in their best interests. So I guess that's just a comment.

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: Well, putting putting down it, if there's no decision about what court you're gonna be in, you know, you you said criminal court in both instances. I mean, clearly, the lesser charge in criminal court is always the better result.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: Yeah. But that can't happen

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: at at the moment. Mhmm.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: And so that's that's what this is trying to get at.

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: Well, because it's because it would go to juvenile court. Is that what you see, that's where the confusion Yeah.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: It it would go Either you feel Well, it's it's agreement can't happen is is the issue if if the kid wants to take the misdemeanor charge.

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: You're trying to say that say the case was in criminal court right now that and, like, the kid is not, like, not eligible for a usual offender or whatever, you can't take lesser included. You can't plead to something different. That's that's my understanding. That's not true.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: And I can say that unequivocally. So and if if they are eligible for youthful offender I mean

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: Well, let's assume they are eligible for youthful offender. Then it's treated as a regular criminal case in adult court, and they can do whatever they need to do. Go to trial, file motions, plea just a lesser offense, enforce any of their due process rights that are just. Okay.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: Who who are these other folks on the this committee that you mentioned?

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: Well, it's DCF, representative there, Department of Corrections, my office, state attorneys and sheriffs. Attorney general's office is there. Judge Zonay has been on it, and I think judge McDonald Katie is maybe transitioning on, but participate on. And I could get the and and I know that Wendy Boudreaux at DCF is the one who convenes the group and sets and, you know, with the assistance of others, sets whatever the agenda might be. And the the thing about the group, and this is I was aware this group took place, but, obviously, the juvenile offender is the one who usually handles this. And since Marshall does both serious stalking unit work and juvenile stuff, he's obviously the perfect example perfect person on that group. But it has been a very stable group that got together out of mutual interest to deal with the raise the age issue in 2016. But because these issues of mutual interest have kind of continued for the last ten years, they have dealt with a lot of other stuff and made some suggestions to court legislation and commented on other legislation and rules changes and the like. And, you know, Marshall had suggested that and it sounds reasonable to me, but, you know, you're the legislature, that they report back. It doesn't have to be a long time, but then you're a two year study committee or something, but have them take a look at it and and come back in the fall. Well, you know, I mean, it it is the second year of the biennium, so I some people may exit. I don't know.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: Well, think we'll put a few of these folks on the agenda to at least hear from them and then determine after we get some changes that were proposed. We'll hear from them and then make a determination if it really is something that needs to go to the study or if

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: it's straightforward enough. You know, this is the kind of, if this bill as it sits wants, you know, you want it to go forward, I'm happy to come back and read all the all the reasons why as a citizen might not be the best idea. But I need to understand kind of the policy of what what was driving it. And I think I do understand that. And now I also think there might be some misconceptions about what is driving the policy, but might not be the might not be the way to go, but it might be a way to satisfy all of the interests, you know, with what you're concerned about and and the interest of others who are commenting on.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: Yeah. That makes sense. I mean, we'll be getting some changes here, which, you know, I wouldn't want you to come in and comment on the bill as introduced. We're gonna be getting some changes that I think will clarify it a little bit more.

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: Yeah. Very much so.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: But I can let you know when we get the new version and then see what we can do moving forward from there. Committee, any questions from that? Just a quick one.

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: Do they have an official

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: name for this committee?

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: Or They just call themselves the juvenile list, the stakeholders group, and and they been getting together, like I said, for ten years. But it's not a legislatively creating committee or a committee of the court or anything else. It's just it is informal, but it's pretty stable and pretty active around the juvenile justice and youthful offender type policy. And, actually, if you got Wendy Boudreau's name. Yeah. Alright. So Wendy. Wendy. Oh, yeah. Wendy and Boudreau, b o u d r e n u.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: One more question. Sure. On a different topic. I know this is short notice. We are picking up one ninety three in about ten minutes or so. Any chance you can stick around for one particular question? It's gone through a a few changes at this point. Will you be free and available? Is that

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: I'll just like, I yeah. I actually plan to be here now, so I'm available. Okay.

[Brian Collamore, Chair]: Great. Well, we are gonna take a five minute break just so we have on the agenda 10:15 for Jen Coleman, but then we can come back to that.

[Matt Valerio, Defender General]: That's the forensics. Yeah. Sorry. It's still a. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready? Yeah. We can we can go up. Yeah.