House panel advances plan for sentencing-reconsideration working group to draft second-look options

The House Judiciary Committee on April 29 discussed language in S.109 creating a working group to review Vermont's post-sentencing review processes and to consider "changes to current law and practice," a scope that witnesses and committee members said should be tightened so the group produces draft legislation if the committee intends to pursue a second-look law.

The issue is whether Vermont should adopt a second-look process that would allow some prisoners to seek a review of lengthy sentences years after they were imposed. Charlie Glesserman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, told the committee that victim participation and other detailed design issues are critical if a second-look scheme is developed.

The committee's legislative counsel, Eric Papadzek of the Office of Legislative Council, described Section 36 (pages 33—2—5 of the draft) as a broadly worded working group that would review existing statutory and case law, judicial and Department of Corrections procedures, victim involvement, and the viability of a review process. Papadzek noted a prior sentencing-commission review and earlier proposals that the group could use as starting points.

Rebecca Turner of the Office of the Defender General said the defense office supports the concept of second look but urged the committee to set a specific deliverable so the working group does not become a general study. Turner told members she did not want the group to be an "exit ramp" that produced no draft language for the legislature to consider. The Defender General's office and others recommended that the working group be charged specifically with drafting proposed statutory language if the committee decides it wants to pursue second-look legislation.

Kim McManus, speaking for the state's attorneys and sheriffs, said prosecutors opposed prior second-look bills but would participate on a working group and noted resource and separation-of-powers concerns about assigning administrative or legal assistance to the group from executive-branch offices. McManus asked the committee to clarify whether certain nongovernmental experts ought to be consultants rather than members.

Several committee members and witnesses recommended adding representatives from the Racial Disparities Advisory Panel (RDAAP) and the Office of Racial Equity to ensure community perspectives and racial-disparities data inform any proposal. Glesserman and others asked that the working group include or consult national experts who have helped other jurisdictions implement second-look programs so Vermont can evaluate what has succeeded and what has not elsewhere.

The committee did not vote on final language at the hearing. Members discussed directing the working group to deliver a written report and, "in the form of proposed legislation," as a way to ensure concrete recommendations rather than a general study. Committee staff noted that House Corrections and Institutions previously held a straw poll in favor of sending related language forward and that sentencing-commission work and an RDAAP report from 2024 are available background materials.

Next steps: committee members said they would refine Section 36's charge to make the working group's deliverable explicit, and to consider expanding the list of invited participants and consultees so the group can produce draft legislative language rather than only an exploratory report.