Some changes to Vermont courts likely to remain

By Patrick Mcardle
Staff Writer
The Vermont Judiciary is not quite ready to restore court operations to what they had been before the pandemic although many counties have resumed jury trials and other matters, and the courts have remained open for business through the judicial emergency declared because of COVID-19.

Many criminal proceedings have taken place with the assistance of video technology and internet connectivity. Some criminal defendants have agreed to appear remotely for serious hearings, including sentencing, but have had the right to appear in person.

Scott Griffith, interim state court administrator for the Vermont Judiciary, pointed out the administrative order explaining the procedures enacted because of the judicial emergency declared in 2020 in response to the pandemic has been amended more than 30 times, most recently about two weeks ago.

“The court, through (the administrative order) has been adapting as we go,” Griffith said.

The latest version requires masks in all public areas of the courthouse or judiciary buildings, like lobbies and courtrooms, but not in staff-only areas.

Griffith said he understood that may not resonate with the general public, but said court staff and judges who work in the buildings were happy with the change which Griffith said was made possible by the reduction in COVID cases in Vermont.

Judges have some authority to modify the safety measures after considering factors such as the length of the proceeding, the number of people in the courtroom and whether the particular courtroom has adequate airflow and filtration.

Courthouses are stocked with mitigation items like masks, hand sanitizer and gloves.

Security staff, which is often provided by the county’s sheriff’s office, are expected to ask visitors whether they have COVID symptoms or have been diagnosed with COVID recently. The deputies are expected to turn away people who might have COVID, even if they are scheduled to appear at a proceeding or applying for protective orders, but the administrative order has directions for those people to either contact the county clerks or apply remotely or through an agency that assists victims of violence.

“On balance, we feel like our policy, our directive, the authority that governs operations, is reflective of where things stand with respect to the pandemic. … We believe, and believe strongly, that courts are unique in that people don’t have a choice about coming to court. They’re responding to a subpoena, there are issues that need to be resolved that can’t be resolved anywhere else, so our doors are open. We feel like we’re striking the right balance between access and public safety,” he said.

Griffith said the courthouses in all Vermont counties, except Grand Isle and Essex, are now available for jury trials. He said that was “huge” for the court system in the state because the ability to schedule trials activates a number of processes that can allow a case to be resolved one way or another.

However, Griffith added that he thinks there’s “no going back” to court proceedings that happen only in person without an option for some kind of remote hearings.

“The court has acknowledged that that aspect of operations is likely to endure as we emerge from the pandemic to endemic and then whatever comes after that. (The judiciary) will create a committee that includes not only court staff but members of the bar and members of the media, to make recommendations, both operational and policy, about what that would look like,” he said.

Leaders in the judiciary are still trying to figure out the right balance. Griffith said it wasn’t clear yet if courts can be as productive operating remotely as they were when most hearings took place in person and for now, many courts are operating in a hybrid fashion.

While Griffith said judicial staff was aware that some people were frustrated because they hadn’t gotten their day in court, he said the Vermont courts could also improve from responding to a challenge.

“This has been a real opportunity for courts to think about how they operate. What does access to justice look like,” he said.

Pending cases don’t necessarily mean a backlog, Griffith said, as cases filed earlier in April and cases filed in 2017 are both pending but Griffith said court staff were working on ways to prioritize the cases that were the “oldest and most in need of attention and get those processed.”

Griffith also noted that Vermont is a rural state, which presents other challenges to the prospect of efficiency through electronic connectivity.

(We’re) thinking about how in Vermont we’re going to be able to address providing access in a remote environment to people who don’t have reliable internet or maybe they don’t have a laptop, they don’t have a smartphone,” he said.

Griffith has been involved with court administration for almost 20 years in Vermont and said the courts “have never confronted this kind of challenge or this kind of opportunity.”

During the past few months, Griffith has visited almost all the state’s courthouses and he said the experience has given him reason to be optimistic.

“It’s remarkable, the resilience, the commitment, the professionalism of people in the judiciary to show up and get the job done, managers, line staff and judges, of course. … I’m really, really proud to be part of what we’re doing here and really grateful that we have the caliber of people that we do,” he said.

patrick.mcardle @rutlandherald.com