Chief Superior Judge urges clearer data, flags transfer ‘ping‑pong’ and local discretion in juvenile cases

Chief Superior Judge Tom Zona told the Vermont House Judiciary Committee on the juvenile justice system’s complexity and the limits of available court data, saying judges can provide county breakdowns of pending youthful‑offender and delinquency cases but some operational details are not collected centrally.

Zona said the judiciary can produce statewide and county counts of pending cases and diversion status — he noted one data snapshot was available “as of January 16” — and offered to work with trial court operations to deliver additional, specific data points the committee requests. He also said the courts do not currently collect some metrics, for example whether motions for youthful‑offender treatment were granted without reviewing individual case files.

The judge told lawmakers that the statutes and rules create a deliberately individualized process for youthful‑offender cases rather than a one‑size‑fits‑all outcome. “There are certain categories or certain areas that [the legislature] want[s] to segregate and look at a different way,” Zona said, adding that whether the system “works” can depend on perspective — prosecutors, defenders and families may judge outcomes differently.

Zona described the transfer process between family (juvenile) and criminal divisions that stakeholders call the “ping‑pong” effect: a case may start in family court, be transferred up to the criminal division, then be sent back down to the family division for youthful‑offender consideration, producing multiple hearings and delay. He said consolidating steps — allowing consideration of youthful‑offender factors earlier in the transfer analysis — would likely move cases more efficiently.

On disparities, Zona said discretion exercised by elected state’s attorneys and by judges contributes to geographic variation in access to diversion and youthful‑offender treatment. He recommended the committee consider collecting targeted data on prosecutor vetoes of diversion referrals and on how many eligible cases were diverted, acknowledging that raw counts alone would not capture the factual reasons behind individual decisions.

Zona warned that comparing sentences across counties is difficult because most cases resolve by plea agreement. He said plea practices, local resources, and treatment availability affect outcomes and that any effort to identify geographic disparities will require careful, case‑level review or new tracking rules. He also noted resource constraints — attorneys, prosecutors, defense counsel and services — can tax the system and that the judiciary will request legislative help when needed.

The judge said some time benchmarks in juvenile dockets are being met more often than in criminal dockets, partly because remote proceedings during the pandemic allowed certain juvenile hearings to proceed more efficiently. He closed by describing ongoing work by a juvenile justice stakeholders group and said he will submit a committee report on transfer issues next December.