Victims’ advocate urges prosecutor gatekeeper and victim notice if Legislature reopens H.379 ‘second look’ sentencing

Jennifer Pullman, director of the Center for Crime Victim Services, urged the House Corrections & Institutions Committee on April 1 to ensure that any legislation reopening sentence reconsideration under H.379 include prosecutors as gatekeepers and explicit roles for victims and survivors.

Pullman told the committee she had reviewed the bill’s language and the Sentencing Commission report and that “there’s not this one‑size‑fits‑all approach when we’re talking about criminal justice reform.” She said Vermont’s Sentencing Commission has discussed these issues for years and that the bill’s findings and intent deserve scrutiny.

Pullman said victims feel the system already offers multiple “exit ramps” for revisiting sentences and told the committee prosecutors have identified “at least seven different exit ramps that currently exist in our system.” She said many survivors have told her that “at some point, a sentence should mean something.”

Pullman named multiple homicide cases while explaining the position she hears from families: Laura Winterbottom; Melissa Jenkins; Lara Sobel; and Amy Fitzgerald. She also named two women serving life without parole, Jody Herring and Patricia Prew, while warning against minimizing the perspectives of survivors. “What I hear is, where is the support for us?” she said.

Pullman praised elements of the Sentencing Commission recommendation that place prosecutors in a gatekeeping role. “I think the prosecutor as the gatekeeper is a vast improvement in this proposal,” she said, but added a key criticism: the draft language does not mention victims. “If we’re going to do this, the Center is going to be working very hard to make sure that victims and survivors have a role in this process because right now, this proposal will allow for the modification of a sentence at any time. But there is no right to be heard.”

She also warned against retroactive changes to plea agreements and sentencing expectations, saying changes that effectively alter bargains made at the time of plea or trial would be “devastating” to victims and communities. Pullman noted implementation questions: post‑conviction relief resources are limited, prosecutors’ offices are underresourced for handling additional post‑conviction work, and victim advocates carry heavy caseloads—she cited victim advocates “who have 600 cases.”

Committee members responded that much of the work on a sentence‑reconsideration proposal would fall to House Judiciary, not House Corrections & Institutions, and the chair said she has notified Judiciary’s chair that the Corrections committee is looking at the issue. Several members emphasized that any future statutory framework should include clear criteria to reduce geographic variation in outcomes and to clarify victims’ notification and participation rights.

Pullman said she plans to continue working on these issues in the off session and intends to press for statutory provisions that (1) preserve prosecutorial review as a gatekeeping step, (2) add explicit notification and consultation points for victims and survivors, (3) avoid retroactive undoing of plea bargains or sentences, and (4) account for the administrative resources needed for expanded post‑conviction review.

The committee held no formal vote on H.379 during the meeting and directed further discussion to the House Judiciary Committee if work continues this session or in the next one.