Judiciary committee hears testimony on S.87; public defender warns bill could lengthen pre‑extradition detention

The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on S.87 on ongoing revisions to Vermont's extradition procedures, with Josh O'Hara, supervising attorney at the Public Defender's Office in Burlington, testifying for the defender general's office about how the statutes operate in practice.

O'Hara said the current statutory framework allows a judge to hold a person brought before the court on an out‑of‑state fugitive allegation for an initial 30‑day period and that a later statutory section generally requires bail unless the person is charged with a life or capital offense. "Under the current statute, what happens is a judge can admit that person to jail unless they make bail, for a period of 30 days," he said. He added that courts commonly grant an extension by 60 days, producing "a possible period of 90 days of incarceration" in practice.

Why it matters: O'Hara told the committee the earlier draft of S.87 would extend those time limits and could raise the maximum period someone could be detained while paperwork and a governor's warrant are completed. "It extends it to a hundred and 20 days," he said when describing the effect of changes in section 2. He cautioned that lengthening detention raises concerns for defense clients and stressed the bill should be treated as a legislative decision about what a "reasonable period of time" is while extradition formalities proceed.

On waiver procedures, the bill's section 3 would clarify an "advance waiver" process. O'Hara said other states have interpreted similar language to mean that a waiver signed outside of an in‑court proceeding is not the exclusive means of consenting to extradition, but he has not seen an advanced waiver enforced against someone who did not consent at the moment they were presented to a judge. He recommended adding judicial confirmation when an advance waiver is presented, saying such a confirmation would check whether the waiver was "really consensual" and would mirror existing procedures used to confirm in‑court consent.

O'Hara placed the legal backdrop in constitutional and case‑law terms, noting the U.S. Supreme Court's extradition clause directs states to return alleged fugitives but does not prescribe detailed procedures. "The issue is fairly limited," he said, noting the statute asks judges to resolve identity, probable commission of the offense, and whether the offense is extraditable. He said the legislature must decide what a reasonable holding period is while the executive branch secures a governor's warrant.

Committee members asked practical questions about how waivers are handled in remote hearings and how to get waiver forms to detained people in other facilities. O'Hara described logistical hurdles in remote arraignments and said he had not seen the advanced waiver procedure litigated in Vermont but that clarifying language and an in‑court confirmation step would help avoid disputes.

The committee chair asked O'Hara to work with legislative counsel Michelle Childs to draft language that would both confirm voluntariness of waivers and provide consistent delivery language when a person is to be transferred to a demanding state. No formal action or vote on S.87 was taken during the session.

The hearing also included scheduling and ancillary committee business after the S.87 testimony; members said they would circulate additional witnesses and draft language for future consideration.