The Senate Judiciary heard testimony Jan. 9 on S.178, a bill sponsors say would restore meaningful remedies for violations of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Defender General told the committee the right still exists but has been ‘‘eroded’’ by exceptions and pandemic-related delays, and urged the Legislature to put clearer statutory standards in place.

The Defender General said pandemic courtroom closures and subsequent scheduling problems left many cases unresolved and stressed that constitutional rights do not ‘‘go away during pandemic.’’ He pointed to appellate history, including a Bennington-era case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court and was later treated as a Vermont-constitutional speedy-trial violation, as evidence that the current system can fail defendants.

Why it matters: Committee members heard that lengthy delays have practical consequences beyond legal fairness. The testimony said competency and incapacity evaluations can take ‘‘as long as six months,’’ producing lengthy periods on conditions of release during which defendants often pick up new charges. Faster resolution, the witness argued, reduces additional violations and case churn.

The Defender General described a Burlington pilot that received $47,500 over three months to contract with Therapeutic Works. He said the program connected defendants to providers, arranged evaluations and transportation, and operated a downtown drop-in space that helped reduce violations while people awaited evaluation or treatment. ‘‘The quicker we can get these things resolved, the less you’re going to have any of that stuff going on,’’ he said.

Committee members pressed on procedural mechanics. One provision cited in the discussion requires prosecutors to respond to a motion within 14 days; members raised concerns that added hearings might worsen backlog or paperwork burdens. The Defender General responded that the bill includes mitigations — discovery and motion requirements — intended to discourage frivolous filings and that judges would have to weigh criteria at hearings.

Drafting issues were raised. The witness warned that allowing prosecutors to dismiss charges ‘‘without prejudice’’ and then refile could be used to restart the speedy-trial clock and undermine the statute’s purpose. He recommended clearer drafting to prevent that manipulation and to avoid unintended statute-of-limitations consequences.

On scope, members asked whether the bill should list which offenses are ‘‘violent’’ and therefore excluded from statutory dismissal timelines. The Defender General recommended that if the committee intends to limit the statute, it should include a specific list rather than rely on litigated definitions.

The committee received rough case-volume figures in the testimony: about 22,000 cases statewide per year, an estimate that backlog-origin cases amount to roughly 20% of the total, and a recent quarter in Chittenden County showing roughly a 39% rise in caseload with statewide caseload up over 15%.

No formal vote or committee action on S.178 was recorded at the hearing’s close. The Defender General offered to share the spreadsheet and PowerPoint data he referenced so committee staff can review caseload and dismissal statistics; members indicated they will pursue technical drafting changes before further consideration.

The hearing moved on after the witness finished; the committee did not adopt language on the record and left detailed revisions for staff and sponsors to reconcile.