House Judiciary hearing on S.12 exposes disputes over sealed records, victims and diversion

The Vermont House Judiciary Committee considered S.12, a bill to change how criminal records are sealed or expunged, as witnesses raised sharply different views about who should be able to see sealed files, which crimes should be excluded from sealing and whether diversion records should be sealed or expunged.

Marshall Paul of the Office of the Defender General told the committee that new language in the draft (he pointed to pages 25–26) would give prosecutors more routine access to sealed files while leaving defense attorneys with a judge-by-judge petition process. “We go from a system where both sides have an equal amount of access to expunged files to a system where…prosecutors have essentially a library of access to sealed files,” Paul said, adding that the change “exacerbates the inequities between the prosecution and the defense.”

The shifts matter for victims and restitution, witnesses told the committee. Jennifer Pullman, executive director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, said the center supports much of the current draft but urged the committee not to reopen its list of disqualifying felonies without time to consult survivors. “When we message somebody that that didn't happen, that's devastating,” Pullman said, adding that listed crimes in section 1 were the product of lengthy review last session and that any change would require a similar process.

Other testimony focused on diversion records. Willa Farrow of the Attorney General’s Office, who works with court diversion programs, said her preference is to retain expungement for post‑charge court diversion cases because diversion often includes restorative accountability and participants expect finality. “My preference is that we retain the expungement provision for court diversion records,” Farrow said. By contrast, Wilbur White, founder of Mad Freedom, said his group supports sealing rather than expungement for diversion because an expunged record erased evidence that advocates had relied on in a past policy debate: “We could find no evidence of it because the case had been expunged.”

Committee members and witnesses also debated procedural safeguards and notice. Witnesses welcomed a new line on page 28 (lines 15–17) clarifying liability and record‑handling for victim services units such as the restitution unit and the victim compensation program; Pullman asked that any court form include those units so they can comply. Marshall Paul and other committee members pressed for parity so defense attorneys are not left with a more cumbersome, judge‑by‑judge access process while prosecutors may browse sealed files without the same hurdle.

Committee discussion touched on related complications: whether pre‑charge diversion (addressed in Act 180 and slated to change in July) should be treated the same as post‑charge diversion, how the sentencing commission's 2021 recommendations influenced the bill's list of disqualifying felonies, and whether any additional nonviolent felonies outside Title 13 (for example, offenses in Title 33 or tax crimes) should be added. No final vote was taken. The chair said committee staff will draft revised language, consult affected offices and consider a future vote.

Why it matters: changes to S.12 would alter access to sealed or expunged records for prosecutors, defense counsel, victim services and law enforcement; they also affect restitution, victim notification and whether diversion participants receive the closure they expect. The committee signaled it will rework the access language and solicit more input before advancing the bill.