[P]roposed legislation would require public defender legal services to any needy person in Vermont charged with a crime, not just those deemed to be serious offenses and carry the risk of jail time.
“Whether you steal a loaf a bread or burglarize a home, the criminal justice is very confusing to a lay person,” said Rep. Nader Hashim, D-Dummerston, the first active Vermont State Police trooper elected to the Legislature and a member of the House Judiciary Committee
“When you’re going into the criminal justice system without someone to guide you through it to make sure you get a fair trial, I don’t think you’ll get a very fair trial and that will only set you up for failure.” he added.
Hashim is sponsor of the legislation along with Rep. Selene Colburn, P-Burlington, also a member of the House Judiciary Committee.
The panel heard testimony on the bill, H.342, on Friday, and the committee is expected to take it up again after the Town Meeting Day week-long break.
Currently, anyone charged with an offense that carries the possibility of jail time, a fine greater than $1,000, or a sentence involving some type of supervision by the state Department of Corrections, such as probation, is eligible for public defender services.
They also must be “financially unable without undue hardship, to provide for the full payment of an attorney and all other necessary expenses of representation or who is otherwise unable to employ an attorney.”
Vermont Defender General Matthew Valerio told the committee Friday he didn’t expect that the proposed legislation would result in much additional financial strain on his office’s resources.
He said that because most criminal offenses include the possibility of jail time or a fine of at least $1,000 the change would only result in about a 5 percent to 7 percent increase in the department’s “low-end” misdemeanor caseload.
And, he said, that increase would be spread across the public defender offices around the state.
Among the misdemeanor crimes that would be included by the proposal are petty larceny, theft of services under $500, retail theft under $900, unlawful mischief, unlawful trespass and disorderly conduct.
In practice, Valerio said, in such cases a judge often asks a public defender to counsel a person charged with such an offense and that takes place.
Most of those cases, he added, resolve with a person going to a court diversion program or result in a sentence that allows a future clearing of a conviction from the person’s record.
Valerio said that the legislation would help those representing themselves in low-level cases who decide to just plea out without knowing the potential consequences of a conviction down the road, such as gaining access to federal benefits.
He said similar proposed legislation has been brought up over the years, but has never moved forward, though he wasn’t sure exactly why.
“I think part of it is people worry about the resources,” Valerio said. “But, these are low-level cases.”
He did say there may be some counties where it may be more of a resource issue than others, specifically saying that such low-level offenses, such as violating the conditions of release, tend to be brought in Bennington County. “In any event,” he said. “that’s a whole other issue.”
The Vermont Attorney General’s Office and the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union both testified Friday in support of the proposed legislation.
“My only concern was, does the defender general’s office have the resources, and I’m pleased to hear that they do,” said Chloé White, policy director at the ACLU of Vermont.
James Pepper, of the state Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, told the committee the change could lead to additional litigation in those cases covered by the proposal, prompting more work for prosecutors.
“I would encourage you ask for a fiscal note,” he said, urging the committee to seek out the financial effect of the legislation.
Rep. Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington and a committee member, asked Pepper if the proposed legislation would actually reduce work for prosecutors.
LaLonde said it would seem to be more efficient for prosecutors to deal with defense attorneys as opposed to “someone holding the hand” of a self-represented person.
“Possibly,” Pepper replied. “A lot of these low-level situations would have some sort of possibly pre-charge, possibly alternative justice response that might wind up in litigation instead.”
Rep. Maxine Grad, D-Moretown, the panel’s chair, said she would asked the Joint Fiscal Office to weigh in on the possible financial impacts of the legislation.
