County state's attorneys tell committee caseloads, discovery volumes are at crisis levels; seek permanent positions and admin support

On March 26 the Senate Government Operations Committee heard an unscheduled briefing from the executive committee of Vermont county state's attorneys about staffing shortfalls, rising caseloads and the operational strain of modern digital discovery.

Ian Sullivan, Veil County State's Attorney and a member of the executive committee, told the committee the state's attorney system is carrying “just about 23,000 cases” across 14 state's attorneys and 58 deputy state's attorneys for a total of 72 prosecutors, which he said equates to an average caseload “between 3 and 400 cases per attorney.” Sullivan said the offices handle matters from low‑level thefts to homicide, and that in December’s data poll there were 96 pending homicide or homicide‑related cases statewide.

Sullivan and other executives described discovery workloads that have shifted from paper and a few photographs to terabytes of digital material and hours of video from body‑worn cameras. “Now just about every homicide, we are measuring the size of the case file in terabytes,” Sullivan said, adding that the volume of video and electronic data greatly increases review time. The witnesses told the committee that the time needed to download, review and organize large video files consumes staff capacity and forces prosecutorial triage.

Annie Newman of the state’s attorney’s office told the committee that several positions funded last session were incorrectly classified as limited‑service and urged those funded seats be converted to permanent status so the offices can retain staff. Newman said the money for those positions is “already in our budget” but the limited‑service classification harms retention because employees receive letters indicating their appointment ends in June.

Committee members were urged to prioritize three items: (1) prevent vacancy‑savings cuts that would eliminate funded positions, (2) convert funded limited‑service positions to full‑time state positions (a classification change that witnesses said does not require additional appropriation), and (3) add additional positions for paralegals, administrative staff and victim advocates to handle discovery and victim services. Witnesses repeatedly framed the request as necessary to serve victims and maintain prosecutorial capacity rather than as creating layers of management.

Officials described operational effects on victims and on case outcomes. Franklin County State's Attorney (Brandon Kronigfeld) and others said that when attorneys are forced to triage, cases that should be prosecuted may be delayed or dismissed. Witnesses also argued that a modest investment in paralegals and victim advocates would allow attorneys to focus on the most complex legal work and improve victims’ access to the criminal justice process.

Discussion touched on budget windows and looming deadlines. Committee members asked for written testimony and prioritized requests to help draft a letter to the Appropriations Committee. Witnesses also reported a short‑term improvement: vacancy‑savings reductions that had threatened positions were restored over the weekend, avoiding immediate layoffs, but long‑term staffing needs remain.

No committee vote or formal appropriation took place on March 26. Witnesses requested the Government Operations Committee relay their priorities to Appropriations, and committee members said they would prepare a letter after receiving a prioritized, written ask from the state's attorneys' executive committee.