by Jo Ellen Nott

Vermont’s increased reliance on remote court hearings, which began during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure safety, has created significant challenges for incarcerated individuals, their attorneys, and the broader justice system. While remote proceedings have become the norm nationwide, their expansion to substantive hearings in Vermont has drawn widespread criticism for undermining due process and creating logistical nightmares.

According to the National Association of Legal Assistants (“NALA”), remote and hybrid hearings are now standard across all 50 states for some civil and criminal cases. However, in Vermont, the shift has exposed systemic flaws, particularly in cases involving incarcerated defendants. One glaring issue is mistaken identity. In a near-catastrophic incident in Windham County, a man slated for release nearly remained incarcerated due to a virtual mix-up, highlighting the risks of relying on video feeds in prison settings. Such incidents underscore the impersonal nature of remote proceedings, where defendants often feel dehumanized and their cases treated with less gravity.

The quality of remote hearings further exacerbates these problems. Incarcerated defendants typically appear via Webex from prison, facing judges on screens and hearing charges through poor-quality speakers. This setup makes it difficult for them to follow the proceedings, especially without adequate consultation with their attorneys.

Attorney-client communication is severely hindered by logistical challenges within prisons. Limited phone access and the high volume of attorneys attempting to reach clients make meaningful pre-hearing consultations nearly impossible. This lack of communication undermines the attorney-client relationship and renders arraignments—a critical first step in criminal cases—almost meaningless. Defendants are often asked to make important decisions without fully understanding the charges or their legal options.

The shift to regional arraignments in Vermont, based on where someone is held rather than where they were charged, has further complicated matters. This practice can result in defendants being assigned one attorney for the arraignment and another for the remainder of their case, increasing the risk of miscommunication and lost paperwork. In some instances, defendants have been “lost” in the system, languishing in jail for months without legal representation due to failures in the attorney hand-off process.

Defender General Matt Valerio of the Vermont Public Defender’s Office in Rutland recounted one particularly egregious case in which a detainee remained in jail without an attorney for 10 months after a hand-off between lawyers never occurred.

Technical difficulties and the impersonal nature of remote hearings also affect defendants’ understanding of and engagement with the judicial process. Stories abound of defendants asking prison staff to explain hearing outcomes or questioning why they were called by a different name, underscoring the confusion and alienation caused by the remote format.

In one instance, Preston Lawson, a prisoner at the Newport prison, was supposed to attend a hearing related to his grandfather’s estate. Instead, prison staff brought a different man named Preston to the hearing. Lawson did not learn about the mix-up until a month later.

The increased reliance on remote hearings has also placed a significant burden on Vermont’s Department of Corrections (“DOC”). Prison staff are now responsible for setting up virtual hearings and creating makeshift courtrooms within lockups, diverting case workers from their traditional duties of preparing prisoners for release. Technical difficulties with equipment and staff unfamiliarity with the technology have led to missed or delayed hearings. Additionally, the DOC has ceased providing certain administrative functions related to court documents, such as printing and sharing them with prisoners, creating further logistical hurdles for attorneys and defendants. Public defenders now face added burdens, such as traveling for hours to obtain a client’s signature on a plea agreement, slowing case resolution and contributing to backlogs.

The DOC has begun pushing back against this increased workload by limiting hearing hours and the types of hearings it will facilitate. The department argues that the burden of facilitating remote hearings should shift back to the judiciary. While all stakeholders acknowledge the problems, potential solutions often lead to disputes. The judiciary emphasizes the cost savings and increased access to justice offered by remote hearings, while the DOC contends that it lacks the resources to adequately support the system.

The DOC has called for additional funding to transport more individuals to court in person or to shift responsibilities back to the judiciary. Sheriffs’ departments, which handle prisoner transportation, also face challenges due to staffing shortages and communication issues with the courts and DOC.

This situation has created a complex web of planning and resource challenges, negatively impacting the efficiency and fairness of Vermont’s justice system. The lack of clear responsibility for facilitating remote hearings has led to a standoff between the judiciary and the DOC, with neither entity fully equipped nor funded to handle the added burden. Until these issues are resolved, the integrity of Vermont’s justice system remains in question. 

Sources: NALA The Paralegal Association, vtdigger

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login