Advocates tell Judiciary Committee Vermont victims lack enforceable rights; seek party status and better notification

At a Feb. 4 Judiciary Committee hearing, advocates and system representatives described a gap between the victims' rights spelled out in statute and victims' ability to enforce those rights in Vermont courts.

Jennifer Pullman, executive director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, told the committee that Vermont’s victims’ rights are statutory rather than constitutional and said that legal remedies are limited. "There is no right without a remedy," Pullman said, summarizing why statutory rights without enforceable remedies are problematic.

What witnesses said: Pullman said 39 states have enshrined victims’ rights in their constitutions; Vermont relies on rights set out in Title 13 (criminal) and Title 33 (juvenile) statutes. She told lawmakers that some Vermont statutes explicitly say that the victim is not a party and that statutory language includes qualifiers like "reasonable" and "practicable," which she said hamper enforcement.

On standing and party status: Several witnesses discussed the legal barrier known as standing, which requires a demonstrable personal injury and a pathway to redress. Pullman and other advocates said attempts to obtain standing for victims in criminal cases have been denied in Vermont. Advocates asked the committee to study party or limited-party status for victims, which they said could improve timely notification and inclusion in communications between prosecutors and defense counsel. "Could be left out of that communication loop," Pullman said of victims under the current structure, describing how lack of party status can exclude victims from case updates.

Notification and case-management systems: Advocates urged better automated notification tied to the state's case-management system (Odyssey). Sarah Robinson said automatic alerts would be helpful but that notifications without advocacy and context can confuse victims. "An automatic notification but a clear avenue to go to a victim advocate for further explanation" was proposed as a hybrid approach.

Compensation vs. restitution: Witnesses explained the difference between the compensation program and restitution. Pullman said the victim-compensation program (administered by the Center) can provide awards up to $10,000 and is available upon a finding of probable cause; the victim may apply at any time and applications are not time-barred. Restitution, by contrast, depends on conviction and is tied to a restitution judgment; a 15% surcharge on court fines and fees capitalizes a fund that lets the state advance up to $5,000 to individual victims pending collection. Pullman said the program's collection tools include liens and measures to capture certain assets, and she cited a roughly 48% collection rate.

Criminal-procedure and disclosure limits: Prosecutors' office representatives told the committee about disclosure constraints. They cited discovery obligations and constitutional cases (Brady and Giglio) that require prosecutors to turn over information that may be material to the defense. Annie Noonan, director of operations and labor relations (office representative), noted that certain information is protected from disclosure (attorney work product, confidential informant identities) but that prosecutors must disclose material exculpatory information and that routine victim impact information can be part of discovery in some stages.

Ending: Advocates asked the committee to gather comparative information from other states, consider statutory changes to provide victims with enforceable remedies, and explore practical fixes such as Odyssey-based notifications and additional funded victim-advocate positions to ensure notifications are paired with support.