Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Victim Notification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates urge clearer victim-notification, hearing rights in S193 forensic bill
Summary
Witnesses told the House Corrections & Institutions Committee that S193 should mirror Title 13 court procedures so victims are asked if they wish to be heard, be given advance notice of hearings, and that hearings be continued if required notice is not provided; advocates also urged explicit rules for notifications when individuals move through forensic facilities.
Charlie Glyman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, told the House Corrections & Institutions Committee that S193 currently includes a victim's right to be heard but needs clearer procedures to make the right meaningful. "This language provides victims an opportunity to speak directly to the court," Glyman said, and urged language mirroring Title 13 protocols used in sentencing and plea hearings so courts explicitly ask whether victims are present or have submitted views.
Why it matters: Without clear procedures, victims may not receive timely notice of hearings or transfers and therefore may lose the chance to participate in proceedings affecting their safety. Glyman recommended three concrete changes: (1) adopt Title 13–style court prompts so judges ask whether victims are present or have submitted views, (2) require prosecutors to give victims advance notice of hearing dates, and (3) require courts to continue hearings if statutorily required notice was not provided, allowing victims a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Committee members and Glyman discussed that the bill’s section governing those found not guilty by reason of insanity currently includes a right to be heard; Glyman urged clarifying language so the right also applies to individuals found incompetent to stand trial. He emphasized operational questions for victim notification in the forensic facility setting: which events (transfers, discharges) trigger notice; which agency will provide notice; acceptable notification methods; how victims will be informed about opt-in/opt-out choices; and how to balance privacy constraints such as HIPAA with statutory notification obligations. "If a victim is not provided with notice of the hearing as required by law, the hearing will be continued," Glyman said, describing his third recommendation.
Glyman pointed committee members to existing statute (Title 13, 13 VSA §4822) that describes some notification mechanics, including a 10-day prior-notice provision in certain discharge contexts, but he warned practice gaps exist and operational details must be addressed during rulemaking. He recommended that rulemaking direct the commissioner of corrections, in consultation with the Department of Health and other stakeholders, to adopt clear victim-notification rules for the forensic facility.
What happens next: Committee members said the Judiciary committee will consider related language in upcoming drafts; Glyman noted rulemaking would begin July 1 and that an interim report is due Oct. 1, which could document progress on notification rules. The committee plans additional review and consultation with prosecutors, agency legal teams, and House Judiciary to address statutory and privacy conflicts.
