Legislative committee hears testimony on bill to create forensic facility for justice-involved people with mental-health needs

A legislative committee heard detailed briefings and testimony on a bill to create a state forensic facility for people involved in criminal proceedings who have mental-health conditions, with members and witnesses raising questions about eligibility, whether care belongs in corrections or Department of Mental Health settings, and the likely scale of need.

Eric Fitzpatrick, who identified himself as "Eric Fitzpatrick with the office of Budget Slave Council," told the committee the proposal would cover two forensic tracks: people found incompetent to stand trial in very serious cases and people found not guilty by reason of insanity. Fitzpatrick said the bill follows U.S. Supreme Court standards for involuntary medication when used to restore competency, explaining that such medication must be medically appropriate, must "serve the important governmental interest of bringing to trial an individual accused of a serious crime," and must be substantially likely to restore competency. "The whole idea is to restore the person's competency so that they can end state trial," he said.

Committee members pressed for data on scale and placement. Fitzpatrick said there has been "anecdotal testimony" that the caseload could be "about six people a year," but he did not present definitive counts. Lawmakers asked where those individuals live before any new facility — in corrections, hospitals or the community — and whether people with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD) are appropriate candidates; Fitzpatrick acknowledged data gaps on clinical profiles and said existing law and procedures vary depending on whether a person is under Department of Mental Health custody, hospitalized, or in Department of Corrections custody.

Jack McCullough, director of the Mental Health Law Project at Vermont Legal Aid, testified that his office represents people in both civil and criminal commitment proceedings. McCullough told the panel that people who enter the system now receive clinically determined treatment in psychiatric hospitals such as the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital, the Brattleboro Retreat and Rutland’s psych unit, and he questioned whether a new facility would yield better outcomes. "From where I sit, I'm not seeing [a significant number] of people who are found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity who go through our present process, and then go on out and commit another serious crime," he said, arguing that evidence of added benefit was not shown in the hearing.

Members raised policy and constitutional concerns about placing pretrial or non‑convicted people in settings that resemble correctional facilities. One lawmaker asked whether Vermont presently treats pretrial detainees with mental-health needs in ways that resemble sentencing facilities; McCullough and Fitzpatrick said practices vary and that any statutory change would likely prompt constitutional challenges. Fitzpatrick warned that a novel statutory system in Vermont "will absolutely be challenged constitutionally" and said the bill attempts to include procedural safeguards and periodic judicial reevaluations to create off-ramps; he noted the bill calls for reevaluations, including every six months or sooner if a restoration is indicated.

Witnesses and members also discussed victim-notification language inserted at the request of the Center for Crime Victim Services and whether HIPAA would limit information shared with victims; Fitzpatrick and McCullough said victims already have certain rights in related proceedings and that statutes can create state-law exceptions to HIPAA for required disclosures, but they said medical details would generally remain confidential. Several lawmakers flagged concerns about staff safety and bed availability when high-acuity patients require intensive staffing ratios, and one member suggested exploring non-correctional facility models or hybrid recovery facilities.

No formal vote or motion was taken; the committee indicated it would conduct a straw poll and may schedule further briefing. Speakers recommended additional information on caseload estimates, cost projections and comparative models in other states, and some members said they would like follow-up testimony from Department of Mental Health and fiscal analysts.

The committee adjourned after scheduling next steps; the bill’s proponents and witnesses said they would return with more detail in a later session.