Judge and prosecutors advise House committee on S.210: replace state's-attorney 'veto' with judicial weighing of criminal-investigation risks

The House Human Services Committee turned to S.210, a bill addressing who may obtain autopsy reports, and heard from Tom Zone, Chief Superior Judge, and Kim McManis of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs on balancing public access with ongoing criminal investigations.

Judge Zone told the committee the draft, as written, appears to give the state's attorney effective veto power over disclosure and proposed removing that explicit veto. "If the superior court finds the petitioner has demonstrated good cause for the petitioner to obtain the autopsy report, it shall order the office of the medical examiner to provide it," he said as an illustration of how a court-centered approach would work, and recommended adding a factor the court must consider: "whether the disclosure of the autopsy report would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceeding."

Why it matters: S.210 would create a judicial process for access to autopsy reports. The outcome affects families seeking information, media or researchers requesting reports, and prosecutors concerned about protecting evidence for ongoing investigations.

Weighing factors and reconsideration

Judge Zone explained how factors would be treated: "Think of it like a scale. Factors are weighed, not counted," he said, meaning a small number of highly weighty considerations could outweigh many lesser factors. Representative Doug Bishop and other members raised whether denials should be revisitable and whether time limits might be appropriate; Judge Zone said petitioners should be able to seek reconsideration on a material change in circumstances, and counsel drafted language to that effect during markup.

Prosecutorial concerns and redaction

Kim McManis, representing the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, summarized prosecutors' interests: "If we're ordering an autopsy report, it is because there's been suspicious circumstances... otherwise we don't order them," and said that adding the criminal-investigation factor and allowing redaction of sensitive portions would address most prosecutorial concerns about witness safety and trial integrity.

Fees and timing

The committee discussed whether to add a filing fee for petitions (members noted related probate filing fees in 32 V.S.A. §1434 generally run $100–$150). Judge Zone said the applicant would normally pay any filing fee but that courts can waive fees if the petitioner cannot afford them. Members also discussed whether an order could specify timing for disclosure or allow a delayed or partial release that could be revisited without full refiling.

Next steps

Committee counsel proposed specific draft edits: remove the phrase that the state's attorney 'does not object' as a precondition and instead add a factor about interference with criminal investigations; add a sentence that "nothing in this section shall prohibit a petitioner from refiling a petition upon a material change in information"; and consider redaction options. The committee agreed to continue editing and to schedule a further markup and possible vote after counsel produces a revised draft.

Ending

The hearing concluded with staff tasked to edit the bill text to reflect the committee's direction and to return to committee for further consideration; no formal vote was recorded in the transcript.