Vermont prosecutors urge caution on 'second look' bill, suggest revisiting 2020 sentence-reconsideration proposal

Kim McManus, legislative attorney with the Vermont Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, told the House Corrections and Institutions Committee on April 24 that the department cannot endorse the current H.379 second-look sentencing proposal and urged legislators to consider a previously proposed sentence-reconsideration framework from the 2020 Sentencing Commission.

McManus said the department's statewide survey showed overwhelming opposition to second-look-style legislation: "I think the number that was given to me by the executive director was around somewhere a 75 out of a 78 opposed second look legislation in general." She described one central concern as the loss of finality in sentencing and the trauma repeated post-conviction proceedings impose on victims. "Every time that a post conviction-type hearing happens ... they then have to relive the event," McManus said.

The committee heard earlier testimony from the judiciary and the defender general, and McManus recommended convening prosecutors, defense counsel and judges to re-examine the 2020 Sentencing Commission recommendation. That prior proposal would allow a court to reduce or modify a sentence "upon the stipulation of the prosecutor's office that prosecuted the case and the defendant" at any time after imposition, and it included a version that would trigger review after a 15-year incarceration threshold, committee members said.

The committee's chair summarized the proposal as an alternative to H.379 and signaled interest in forming a multi-party group to investigate. McManus said her office would participate in such discussions but could not commit departmental support for any particular version without surveying field prosecutors at upcoming training in June.

Prosecutors also raised resource and litigation-burden concerns. McManus recommended exploring limits or clarifications on post-conviction relief filings if the legislature created a new reconsideration pathway, noting, "post conviction relief ... currently right now is unlimited," and that her office has only one appellate attorney available to absorb appeals and post-conviction work.

Committee members and witnesses debated victims' roles in any reconsideration process. McManus and several committee members agreed victims' perspectives must be factored, but McManus cautioned against making victims the final veto: "Ultimately, it is the prosecutor's decision. We can't give victims ... the ultimate yay or nay on pleas." Several legislators said a requirement that victims be notified and their views considered could be part of a compromise.

McManus also told the committee restorative options large enough to substitute for incarceration are uneven across the state, saying restorative justice "varies county to county" and is currently focused on lower-level offenses rather than major felonies. She said prosecutors are more likely to endorse restorative approaches if there are substantial programs that provide meaningful outcomes for victims and communities.

The committee did not take formal action on H.379 during the session. Several members signaled they would discuss seeking a recommendation to the chair of the House Judiciary Committee to reconvene stakeholders and return recommendations in the next session.

Ending: Committee members agreed to continue the conversation. McManus offered to provide internal survey breakdowns and staffing numbers to the committee and to participate in working discussions with judges and defense counsel ahead of a legislative decision next session.