House Judiciary Committee weighs S.87 changes to extradition waivers and judicial review

The House Judiciary Committee on April 24 examined draft 2.3 of S.87, a bill that would change how Vermont treats out-of-state pre-signed extradition waivers and add a limited role for courts in authenticating those waivers, witnesses and committee members said.

Assistant Attorney General Todd Dalos told the committee the updated draft “clarifies” that an individual may be extradited without a governor’s warrant if three criteria are met and that new language on page 3 “basically says that the following 3 requirements have to be met.” He said the most substantive change is a bifurcated authentication step now placed in subsection 2: when the person has been charged but not convicted the matter “has to go to court and a judge will review it immediately,” and when the person is post-conviction corrections or law enforcement could authenticate the waiver.

The judicial witness — a Vermont Superior Court judge who identified the practical and constitutional issues courts would confront — told the committee the draft leaves unclear what “authenticated” and “immediately” mean in practice. The judge warned that under the draft the court “has to accept at face value whatever is there” unless a judge finds the documents lack authenticity “on their face,” and said that could foreclose consideration of other information the court might view as relevant.

Rebecca Turner of the Office of the Defender General said the draft as written risks reducing procedural safeguards. “I don't see how you get around the fact that you still have to produce the actual charge that the person is a fugitive that falls within that status,” Turner said, adding, “Can't be less.” Turner and the judge repeatedly urged clearer language to preserve transparency, notice and habeas corpus remedies.

Kim McManus of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs said prosecutors and law enforcement want a streamlined process but are comfortable with a short judicial check: “our hope was to simplify part of the process, if possible, not to overcomplicate it,” she said, and added that their view is that a presigned waiver should be treated as valid unless the defendant demonstrates otherwise.

Committee members questioned logistics in practice — whether a court review must occur at night when an arrest happens, what information will be before the judge, and who bears the burden to show the waiver is invalid. Witnesses and members discussed alternatives including handling pre-conviction waivers on the next business day in an initial appearance, rather than requiring immediate overnight courthouse review. The judge said the next-business-day approach would provide greater transparency and allow counsel to appear.

Draft details discussed included: - Subsection c (page 3–4) sets three criteria that must be met before a presigned waiver can be activated without a governor’s warrant. - Subsection 2(a) requires immediate judicial review for charged-but-not-convicted cases to authenticate identity and the signed waiver “on their face.” - Subsection 2(b) allows corrections or the holding law enforcement agency to authenticate waivers for post‑conviction or supervision-related returns. - Subsection f would require filing a full fugitive-from-justice complaint if a court or corrections identifies an error suggesting the wrong person or otherwise non‑authentic documents.

Witnesses and members raised implementation questions: what constitutes sufficient evidence to authenticate (fingerprints, certified copies), whether an affidavit must accompany overnight holds, how sealed records or out‑of‑state documents will be presented in court, and how the process would interact with interstate supervision compacts. The judge recommended written recordkeeping so that “someone should be able to go and look at the paperwork to recreate what occurred and why it occurred,” to maintain public confidence.

No formal vote on S.87 occurred during the session. Committee discussion closed with plans to revise draft language and to coordinate with other offices and the Senate Judiciary Committee; committee members said they would seek a revised bill for further consideration and possible committee vote in the coming days.

Ending: Committee members and witnesses agreed on an iterative drafting process. Several speakers urged clearer definitions of “authenticate,” “immediately,” and the documentary standard judges should apply; the committee asked staff to produce a new draft that addresses those points and to coordinate with corrections, prosecutors and defense counsel before a revisit of S.87.