Deputy State’s Attorney urges narrow competency-restoration pathway, proposing forensic placement after insanity verdicts
Loading...
Summary
Deputy State’s Attorney Jared Bianchi told the Judiciary committee that S.193 would create a limited forensic pathway and periodic review schedule for people adjudicated insane or found not competent in life-offense cases, addressing a gap that leaves some defendants held pretrial or released without structured restoration.
Jared Bianchi, a deputy state’s attorney who prosecutes in Bennington County, told the Judiciary committee on April 8 that the state lacks a clear competency-restoration pathway for the small number of people charged with life offenses and who either become incompetent pretrial or are later adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). Bianchi said S.193, as he proposed to amend it, is narrowly drawn to address those highest-acuity cases and to balance public safety with defendants’ due-process rights.
Bianchi framed the problem with a recent case in which a defendant admitted to second-degree murder but became ill before sentencing. "We were not able to proceed the sentencing at that stage because he was no longer competent," he said, describing how the absence of a restoration program meant the case stalled and the defendant later died. He told the panel that the current system can leave defendants either housed in Department of Corrections (DOC) custody without restoration services or released to the community without a meaningful process.
The testimony distinguished competency — a fluid, judge-made determination about a defendant’s present ability to participate in proceedings — from an insanity adjudication, which Bianchi said is a jury finding about the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense. Under the bill’s NGRI component, a person found insane by a jury would move into a forensic-placement pathway because the jury has already established both the underlying conduct and the qualifying condition indicating potential ongoing public-safety risk.
On several procedural points, Bianchi proposed edits to the senate-drafted language. He said the committee should adopt a rebuttable presumption that a person qualifies for forensic placement while leaving the state with the burden to justify continued detention. He also recommended treating a 48-hour initial hearing requirement as infeasible and instead suggested a 60-day window to allow time for a substantive forensic risk assessment and a contested hearing when needed.
Bianchi described a ‘‘dilating’’ review schedule for long-term placements: an initial review after six months, a second review after a few years (he mentioned three as an example), and five-year reviews thereafter, with clinicians at the facility or the defendant able to request earlier review. For competency-restoration in the pretrial posture, he said the bill would retain six-month periodic competency evaluations and restoration services; after two unsuccessful cycles courts would examine whether restoration is likely and, if not, transition the case into the longer-term forensic-review process.
The deputy state’s attorney emphasized the small scope of the proposal. "I think that the general estimate is probably about five, give or take, in a given year," he told the committee when asked how many people might be eligible. He and committee members repeatedly noted that the limited estimated caseload counsels against building large, permanent facilities and argues instead for flexible placements and contracts, potentially including out‑of‑state partnerships when appropriate.
Committee members pressed Bianchi on agency roles and operational details, asking why the Department of Mental Health (DMH) would not take a lead role. Bianchi said DMH provides hospital-level care when clinically required, but S.193 addresses a population defined by combined mental-health needs and public-safety risk and that implementation details — provider standards, contract terms and quality protections — should be developed with agency input.
On victims’ access to information, Bianchi told the committee he supports using victim advocates to keep victims apprised of proceedings rather than releasing raw evaluative records publicly; he said records become subject to court processes and privacy constraints once entered into evidence. He also offered to supply the committee with proposed tracked edits to the senate language and to return for further testimony.
The hearing concluded with the chair asking Bianchi to submit his edits to staff and adjourning the morning session; the committee indicated it would continue additional testimony on the measure later in the week. The transcript provided the meeting date as "April 8" but did not state a year.
