 The agenda, this agenda item this morning is the status of trials. And I want to change that to the status of criminal trials. And then next Friday schedule the status of civil trials. Because I've been reminded that that trying to do both of them. I may not give us what we're looking for. And so Chris Bailey has contacted me. I think Terry Corsons would like to be involved in that conversation. Well, obviously that game. To talk a little bit about the civil process. So maybe we could arrange that for next Friday, Peggy. Yep. Well, let me. Sure. Chris is with the Obama Association for justice. And he's been with us other times and there may be other civil attorneys who would like. Yeah. I really wanted to. The focus this morning is on the criminal side anyway, with Matt and the state's attorneys. Just make it the criminal and then we'll do the civil next week. Why don't I start with Eric to go over. I just wanted to share it by able. But why don't we go over the. I was just, but I just got a text message that Sergeant. All resigned. What? Sergeant Hall from Chaspere's. One who. Was under suspension. That's why I lost train of thought. I lost my train of thought. Eric, why don't we start with you to go over. Judicial rules committee that Senator Benning's chair of. Has been over the judicial emergency judicial order. And that sets up the. This morning's conversation about. The backlog in criminal. Yes. Thank you, Senator Sears. Eric Fitzpatrick with the office of legislative council. Good to see everybody this morning. Here to talk a little bit with the committee. About a Senator Sears said. Administrative order number 49, which is. The order that the judicial branch issued. That declared a judicial emergency. Back in March of last year. I'm sure everyone recalls. That the state of emergency issued by the governor, I believe, was. March 13th of last year was a Friday, Friday, the 13th. If you look at, actually, I should ask first, does everybody. Have. I sent out a 049, I think. He posted it on the committee site. On the committee website. We got it this morning. I. Yeah. So we can refer to that. Anybody wants it on the screen share. We could do that. It's pretty straightforward. So I'll leave that up to folks. I can say, give you, as you mentioned, Senator Sears a few minutes of background to kind of lay the foundation for the discussion that you're going to have with witnesses today. Obviously. A 049 was issued by the court and not drafted by me. So, you know, questions about the details of the order will be probably. Better directed to some of the other witnesses you have on today, like judge Greerson and court administrator Gable, who I think have a more familiarity with it, but I can certainly direct the committee to the language that's related to criminal criminal trials. As Senator Sears indicated is the subject of your discussion this morning. So, uh, initially the order was, was issued, uh, March 16th. So, so the executive emergency was declared by the governor for the state of emergency, declared by the executive branch Friday, the 13th, a couple of days later on Monday, March 16th of last year is when the judicial emergency was declared essentially saying that due to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus COVID-19, the governor's declared the state of emergency for these, for those reasons, the court thereby declared a judicial emergency as well, which to go into effect immediately. That was that day, March 16th. Currently, you know, as with the governor's order, the AO 49 has been amended many times, sort of in response to the evolving nature of, of the pandemic when circumstances change, the rule needs to be amended to reflect sort of new knowledge and the new circumstances as they evolve. Uh, but currently the, the judicial emergency order AO 49 is, uh, goes through March 31st of 2021. So right now the date is extended through March 31st. That's been amended several times the date I mean, so that could certainly be amended again, but that's the current status of the rule goes through March 31st. And as Senator Sears also indicated, there's a bifurcation in how civil trials and criminal trials are treated under the under the order. The focus today is on criminal trials. So I'll focus on that as well. The language in AO 49 and for those of you who are looking at it, this is a subdivision three of the rule. Three a deals with jury trials and civil cases, which under the current language are suspended until the language says at least January 1st, 2021. So, you know, technically speaking, civil trials under the language now, which is suspended till at least January 1st, technically speaking, civil trials could proceed under that language. Uh, with respect to criminal trials, the language is different and it says that it provides the authority to schedule individual jury trials and criminal proceedings. Uh, after January 1st, 2021, uh, only with the authorization of the chief superior judge and the court administrator. And I just realized that that also applies to civil proceedings. I hadn't noted that before, but so in either case, criminal or civil trials, the chief superior judge and the court administrator have the authority to schedule and hold jury trials, but the rules specifically, uh, indicate some factors that should be considered and whether or not jury trials are going to go forward. And they basically are the ones that you might expect in a situation like this, they have to consider, uh, the current course of the COVID-19 pandemic, current recommendations of public health experts, whether the unit, you know, the particular unit that the trial would be in, has adopted a plan that addresses ventilation and airflow and allows for socially distancing and movement of all participants and jurors through the course of the jury draw and the trial. So obviously you've got, uh, uh, specifically articulated fact that it has to do with the, the physical space in which a jury trial could take place. How well is it ventilated? Are there opportunities to keep members of the jury, members of the jury, members of the committee, the parties, the attorneys, socially distance. All that is specifically set forth is one of the factors that has to be considered. Uh, when deciding whether or not a jury trial can go forward, uh, as well as, as I just mentioned, what's the state of the COVID-19 pandemic situation? What have public health experts recommended? And lastly, uh, the availability of staff and other resources to So we've got that factor to consider as well what kind of administrative support between the personnel who work in the court system is available to do that. I'm sorry, there was one more factor and that's the rights and interests of the litigants. So also to consider what the parties themselves what are their rights and interests in the, in the moving forward with holding a jury trial. So again, that's not an exclusive list because it says that the factors to be considered include those factors so there could be others that would also be relevant for the chief superior judge in the court administrator to consider when they're deciding what to do about moving forward with jury trials but those are specifically articulated and laid out in the list in AO 49. That's fine just a quick question. One has anyone challenged this. I mean, has any perspective litigant who's being denied a jury trial. Challenge this. Are you aware of that again. There is a case in Bennington. It's always been. I believe is challenging. He's been waiting on for a trial for quite a while he was. I think he had a hung jury the first time and he's still in jail. And he was concerned about his cobit 19 that he would, he's a high likelihood and but I think Pat Gable or Judge Gerrison can speak to that and maybe able to answer that question about any other challenges. I know a lot of will hear from the state's attorneys in general. They've had a difficult time reaching we bargains because there is no trial. Yeah, Joe was saying that yesterday. Okay, thank you. So the, the languages to sort of the considerations that go into whether or not to have a jury trial or just as I outline and that's really the base or the question is what goes into the court's decision about this. I should also mention though and you also have this on your on the committee webpage and folks can take a look at if you're interested in and maybe referred to by by other witnesses later on but considering this issue of what to do about resumption of jury trials, the court and the judicial branch formed a committee. It's called the Supreme Court jury restart committee and that committee was tasked with coming up with not only the in fact, not just the factors to consider and whether or not to start jury trials but what precautions what steps needed to be enacted what measures could be taken to ensure safety to ensure efficiency to ensure that the process would work, considering the COVID-19 pandemic so that committee issued a report in July of last year in July of 2020, which you have on the committee webpage in that court. I'm sorry that report dealt with some of the things that I've mentioned already but really went into detail about what needed to be done with the physical plants with the court houses in the court rooms what measures would need to be taken to ensure safety, how the jury summons and the jury draws, as well as the trials themselves would need to be held in order to maintain safe practices during the during COVID-19 and any statutory or rule changes that might be needed to accomplish that so there's a lot in there it's a lengthy report. And I'm sure as I say Judge Greerson, Court Administrator Gable can refer to that in more detail but it does, as opposed to AO 49 which we just looked at which is sort of the factors to consider whether or not to have a trial. This report tends to go into more detail about if a trial did take place what measures would be necessary to keep things safe. I do remember reading that report and there were places like Wyndham County was better off in terms of air and space and Bennington County. I know they recommended against Grand Isle County and the folks in Rand Isle County saw that as trying to take away their files. John Campbell, if you could mute yourself. Thank you. No, anyway, that that that report is available it's an interesting report. Was there any, is there any ability and maybe I'll have to ask Judge Greerson that you can hear it. I think most was looking at perhaps starting up they were talking about using the very auditorium. Could an alternative venue be used under that exact under the. I don't think there's any, any prohibition on using an alternative venues as long as it met the sort of criteria for safety that we will be talking about but because you indicated Judge Greerson probably know more about I don't see any language that would prohibit that. Other questions for Eric. Eric, thank you for setting the table. Sure. Did you have anything else. I don't mean to. No, no, that was it. Thank you. What I thought. Cheryl. Ella Verta is representing the Department of Corrections this morning and thank you for being with us Cheryl. And our main there are two things that we wanted to talk to the Department of Corrections about one is what are your numbers. And right now in terms of both in state and out of state placements and number of people on detention but also I'm hearing from the fence attorneys that they're having. There as well, having problems and on long wait times to talk with their clients. Cheryl there. I am. Yes, sir. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you. Good morning. I was just looking for my unmute button and my, and my camera. We all, that's how we all learned to live. Absolutely. We do teams. So it's just a little different on this one. So, oh yeah. I did hear your question and I am looking for this morning's email that came out about our numbers, which would give you today's information. Let me get you. And then your other question was related to. The health of attorneys and I'm assuming others. Talking with their clients who are on detention. I don't know that it may also be clients are incarcerated. Okay. I've heard more concerned from the defense bar regarding their ability to. Senator Benning can speak to that he's one of the defense partners. He told me that he's had long wait times. Sure. I can give you our numbers today to start with. So our total population is 1286. Our out of state population is 184. Yeah, it's pretty low right now. Our total male population is 1208 and our total female population is 78. That was the male population again. 1208. And the female population is 78 out of that 1286 which again includes out of state we have 308 state detainees. That indicates. Yeah, that's right. That's right. That was sort of like 400 before the pin a year ago. Our numbers were, yes, considerably higher on both sides. Sentence stand detained. Yeah, but the detainee was about 400. Yes. Senator white. So the person that you were talking about. Who's waiting for another trial. Would he be considered a detainee. Correct. Okay. Thanks. Just wondered. Correct. Any idea of how many of those 308 are waiting for a trial. I do not know that I could get that number for you. I would think most of them are waiting for some sort of resolution of their case. Some of them may be sentenced, but for other reasons, but those 308 would be detainees waiting for some sort of resolution of their criminal case. I think that's a question regarding the numbers. I just. Not a question as much. Yeah. This goes back to when we were speaking at the very beginning of the pandemic about testing. And I asked, given that the numbers are so low. You know, we're talking about. You know, Used to be closer to 1500. Now it's closer to 1000. Why couldn't we test every inmate? And now with the testing has ramped up. My question is the same about vaccination. You know, it's such a small population at such high risk. Why, why not? That would be. 2500 shots would be two doses for the entire population. I just don't understand why the administration doesn't just do that. I think that's assuming that people would accept the shot, but. Any, any thought on that? Are you asking me? I'm sorry. Yeah, I suppose. I mean, it'll be a question that we can pose to other people as well, but. Do you have. I think Peggy and I plan to have the commissioner of health. Okay. And to answer that next week. All right. Yes, I think that falls with the department of health for sure. All right. So we were going to ask. I believe that was one of the agenda items I asked Peggy to work on next week. I just want to kick in. I think this is a good time to start planting seeds. With the judicial branch. Because we all need to be on the same page. That the judicial branch right now is in trouble. We all need to be on the same page, especially with respect to criminal cases and getting vaccines to the people who are in the court staffs, the judges, the lawyers, the prosecutors. And now Philip brings up another interesting component of that cohort. That's the only way that this system is going to move forward. And I think we all, especially the witnesses who are on this page right now. We all need to be on the same page united in making sure that that message gets passed along to commissioner. I'm sorry to Dr. Levine. We can add that to the agenda item for discussion with Dr. I don't know how you. Vaccinate potential jurors. Right. You don't know who they, we may have to revert to having every jury panel over the age of that. Yeah, that, that would certainly be fair. You'd be the first defense attorney. I'm only 64 in trouble. Let's add that next week, Peggy to that agenda. I was told by DOC today that the person we should talk to is deputy commissioner Jenny Samuelson from eight HS. Cause they're in charge of it. Okay. So I'll reach out to them. Okay. That's great. Where were we? Okay. The numbers look really encouraging. But I'm wondering if. Once the courts backlog is taken care of, we'll see a surge. You know, people incarcerated who are currently in the community, but are not incarcerated. And their trials come up with their resolution and their. Situation and they end up in cars. Senator white. That brings up an interesting question is if they are. If they are incarcerated, would they really need to be incarcerated once. Once the courts go back into session? I mean. Do we. Is this an opportunity for us to look at who needs to be incarcerated and when. Hey, that's. Justice for the investment. Who is looking at that. Any, are you able to comment on the second part of the issue, which, which is the attorneys. Trying to get in touch with their clients. Yes, sir. I think we have two conversations to have. And one of them is prior to a rain event. And then the second one would be after somebody is arraigned. And the easier one after somebody is arraigned is all of our incarcerated individuals have a GTL tablet. And they can have their attorney. Added to their pin sheet. And those calls can be flagged as free. And not recorded. So we have let the attorneys know that that's something that's available to them. If they want their client can reach out to them that way. So as far as setting those calls up. It's not, they can't call their client. Their client would have to call them. So there's some logistics and how their client would know when, but that's easy for us to handle with our casework staff. But that is one way that. It bypasses those. Phone calls, those phones and the, you know, that are sitting in. In the units. Where that's where the attorneys are having their problems with because many of our facilities. The structure is set up that. When the attorney calls in. It's one phone line. So if there's an attorney, a private attorney calling in, and they're speaking with their client and then an attorney from another county calls in the lines tied up. So they cannot reach anybody else in the building. What we're working on right now with BGS is. Trying to upgrade as much as we can within our building structure. Those phone lines. So that way we can. Have more of those available. But I think the, the larger, the bigger solution is for the attorney to provide their number to their client. Their client can add that number to their pin sheet. And then we, as on our side, flag it as free and flag it as. Privilege. So it's not reported. We're not listening to it. And there's no cost. To the client. Senator. So Cheryl, this is the first time hearing that such a device is available. To an inmate. And that solution. In isolation. Is ideal. But the practical implementation of it. Still sounds problematic. Generally speaking. My clients don't call me. Unless they have some immediate problem. But I need to call them. On many different occasions for various reasons. And if I'm hearing you correctly, the way that this would be set up is they're provided with a number to call. But how does the attorney know. What number they're supposed to call. Especially in cases where there are new assignments and people are lodged. Either prearrainment. Or in some kind of a probationary status, they're revoked. And they're placed back in the facility. How is it that we are supposed to know. How to contact those individuals. I think prearrainment. I'd like to sort of address those. Differently. I think if we just. If we're talking now about post-arrayment, people that have a tablet assigned to them. Prearrayment people. Will not have their own tablet. But post-arrayment. Your clients would have their own tablet. And just like you do now, a lot of attorneys are calling and they're asking to speak with their client through the case worker. And then they would let your client know to call you Tuesday at two. And then they could call you on their tablet. And that would be without using the attorney line. So here's my problem. I get a notice from the courthouse that so and so has been assigned to me. And they are going to be arraigned on say Monday. At eight 30. How is it that they would let your client know to call you on Tuesday at eight 30. How is it that I am supposed to get hold of them. If the lines that I normally would call the attorney line is. Present in the room where there is a current. Court hearing going on. And we can't get through to that. Line anymore. So can I just ask, are you all set with post-arrayment people? As far as your contact with them, right? Yeah, I think that can be handled, but my immediate question and understanding understand. So pre-arrayment, we're working on a couple of different options right now. We do have the case worker or whoever each facility is assigned to be the liaison to the court for those pre-arrayment hearings, the rule of five hearings. And they are the ones that are getting people ushering them to and from those phone calls. Right now in particular, I'm not sure, sir. I don't know which county you're from. I apologize, but I know it at Southern state because of Marvel Valley's closed. Southern state has multiple counties are doing arrangements for. Well, I'm in Caledonia County. Okay. And what my thought here is in your immediate response. Is that the case workers. Is there any possible way when an individual is brought into the facility for the first time. That a case worker being assigned can contact the court, find out who the attorney is that's being assigned, and then contact the attorney to advise them as to how they can reach their client. I think I can take that suggestion. I know that judge Greerson and, and, um, Defender General's office in the state attorney's office, we have regular meetings that we're talking about how to sort of solve these problems. And that's something we could certainly discuss at one of those meetings if there's another way. I know there's been the Defender General at that table too, to have those conversations as well. So I think we could discuss that in those meetings. If that makes sense. I don't think that I have a, an answer for you at this time. No, as long as the seed is planted, I'm happy with that. Yeah, we've been meeting regularly on those questions. One of the things that we're working on at Southern state. Again, we're, we're working on with, with BGS to sort of upgrade the system lines where we can. But one of the. Trials we're working on a Southern state right now is with those tablets. Not this and again, if this is confusing, just please feel free to stop me at any time. But right now we have tablets that are assigned to individual people and they have their own lists on it and they call their own people. What we're working on right now, and we just got the list yesterday, the Defender General's office has been working with us to get us every single public defender and conflict attorney's phone number and we're working on it. So they'll be. So they'll be added to these tablets. And then the tablets will be assigned to a county. So they'll be sitting at a facility signed to a county, Washington County will have one and Chittin County and Bennington County will have their own. When those arrangements are getting scheduled to start, those attorneys would call the facility and say, I'm ready to speak to my client. So the staff member, the DOC staff member assigned to that, the county phone for that, the tablet for that, and then bring it to the booking area where those individuals are. And then they could speak through the tablet with us. So they would call back on that phone line because again, those phones can only call out. They can't take calls in. So you were, you know, public defender would call and say, I'm ready to speak to my three clients that are going to be arraigned. And then that tablet would be used to make that phone call would just be passed between those three. That tablet now in the booking area. Correct. The booking area, at least in my experience, is never a place for confidential conversations. Is there a problem there to be thinking about? I think each facility is different. And I think it would depend on how this is just one solution that we're talking about too. There's still the regular attorney lines that are in there that you have access to. There's, so there are other avenues. There's other ways. There's other ways. There's other ways. There's other ways. This is just another piece of the puzzle. We're trying to add to help with the solution for it. Cheryl. Yes. It strikes me hearing you say that they're going to pass the tablet between them. Isn't that a COVID. We have protocols for that, sir. Yes. We do have protocols in place for that, for cleaning the tablet in between each person. They won't just be passing it directly. They're going to pass the tablet in between each one. Okay. Perfect. Thank you for asking. That doesn't speak to Joe's point, but. No, but thank you for asking that. Yes. Yeah. I'm not sure if Senator Sears has gone offline. No, I'm, I'm actually here. I just had to do something. Did you have a question? No, I just wondered where we were headed. Yeah, I think we're. I think we need to hear from others on this issue. Thanks, Cheryl. I can stay if there's any further questions, I'll just mute myself right now. I think I'll go to. Judge Greerson and Pat Gable in either order or both at the same time, whichever they prefer. I think Judge Greerson could testify first and I'm happy then to supplement or answer questions. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. And it's. Happy new year. It's good to be back before the committee, although like you, I wish we were meeting in person. And for the record, Brian Greerson, a chief superior judge. And I think what Pat was alluding to is after I testify, she'll come on and correct. I don't know. Any issues that I haven't properly addressed. Just a couple of comments before I get into the subject of jury trials. Senator, you asked about, are you commented on the numbers. That Cheryl presented for the detainee population. And it struck me as I saw those numbers, I get those numbers every day that the total. The total state, the detainee population. The total state. And the total state. And the total state. The total state. The total state for the male and female is down to 308. And if you recall, before the pandemic historically. We had trouble getting below a 400 on a daily basis. So I think one of the things that stood out for me was the fact that. Despite the fact that, and I'll get into it. We haven't not had any jury trials. Since February of last year. 2019. in 2020, excuse me, that detainee population has not grown. And it's actually down. The other number though, that is, I think probably of equal interest to the committee is the fact that of those 308, at least the last count I saw, there were a little more than 200 of them were being held without bail. And as we talk about the issues that are before, certainly the judiciary and this committee, that population is certainly a priority population or the judiciary as it is for everyone involved in the criminal justice process as we go forward. I will say, and I think you're all aware that we have not had jury trials since February of last year. I am cautiously optimistic that we will be able to resume the work we have started in Wyndham County in February, meaning that we would hopefully be able to resume the process to bring in a jury in mid to late February in Wyndham County. The reason I say that is that we have, among other things, we've been working over the course of the pandemic with BGS, with the Department of Health. And we've also retained the services of a Dr. Aaron Bromage, is a immunologist infectious disease expert out of UMass Dartmouth. And Dr. Bromage, we're able to retain his services in the fall, late fall, but he has been consulting with a number of New England states and with courts throughout the country and other businesses around the pandemic and the effects of this virus. Matter of fact, he was working on the virus actually in December of last year before it was really publicly aware because of the work that he's done. He's been just a fabulous resource for the judiciary, for us, but for other states that he's working with. And if there's ever an opportunity for this committee to hear from Dr. Bromage, I think it would be certainly something I'd be glad to talk with the committee about. He's just a wealth of knowledge in this area. But I bring his name up because when I said I'm cautiously optimistic, we are awaiting word from him hopefully this week or no later than next week. He indicated in a meeting with Vermont and other states last week that he's going to do a state by state. I'll call it an analysis, a summary of where we stand in terms of restarting jury trials. Vermont like other states have not been able to conduct jury trials or some of the states have done it on a very, very limited basis. But based on Dr. Bromage's recommendation, jury trials for the most part were suspended in January and the question before him last week, not only by us, but by other states that he's consulting with, is it safe to resume jury trials in February? And that's when he indicated he'd be providing us with a report. And it's hard because as I was listening to the news this morning, for instance, the numbers as everyone knows are up, the case numbers are up, that's certainly something he takes into consideration, the positivity rate. But the other, I'll call it glimmer of hope from this morning's report that I heard was that although the numbers are up and we expect to see the bubble from the holiday period, at least the report this morning suggested, and this is a local report that the numbers may come down by the early part of February. And as we're looking forward to resuming that work in Wyndham County, what's important about the next week to 10 days for us is that the jury panel that was summoned for that case, and I'll go back a little bit, it was scheduled for December 7th. So a jury has been summoned. We had started the process of considering jury requests to be excused. And so for us to get that case going again or that court going again, we need about a month's notice. In other words, we always give those jurors about a month's notice. So if we can get clearance from the Vermont, as I said, we're working with the BGS and Department of Health and with Dr. Bromage, if we get that notice out next week, then we would be able to resume that trial about a month from then, which would be mid to late February. It would seem that a trial would inflict with the governor's executive orders. How would you put 12 people together, not of the same household, not counting all the staff and everybody else? So do you, this is, I'm all, you know, I would love to, I think we need to get jury trials back because that would result in a lot of resolution of many of these cases that are just waiting. No. Please bargain. But can you actually do that, or would it not violate the governor's executive order? Oh, it's interesting that you asked that question because that played a role in why we suspended the trial date that was scheduled for December 7th, because if you recall back at that time, the governor was saying that certainly around Thanksgiving, which would be a week or so before that, 10 days before that, that family shouldn't mix. And that's one of the factors we took into consideration, plus some protocol the court had adopted at that time, again, based on Dr. Bromage's recommendation that post-holiday period, three or four days after Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's, that we minimize in-person appearances in court. So the combination of the numbers going up in December, the governor's order, which we obviously follow in the Department of Health recommendations, that's why that trial case was suspended at that time. So going forward, if it looks like the numbers are going down to the point where we can go back to where we were pre-thanksgiving, we would send the notice out for February, but we're continually monitoring what is happening so that if we, even if we send out notice to the jurors and whether it's a week or whether it's even the day before a trial is to start things change, we're prepared to cancel the trial if necessary. We have worked, as I said, with the Department of Health as well as BGS and in talking with the Department of Health, we've asked if we are ready to go forward, we would make sure they review our protocol and the steps we've taken to make the trial safe for the public coming in, and we would hope to get there, if you will, stamp of approval to move forward. Now, would you take cases, for example, from Bennington County and Windsor County and move them to Brattleboro Files? Or is it planned just to do those counties where the state office building or excuse me, the courthouse is approved for air quality and et cetera? So the short answer is I've been asked that question many times about a change of venue. And when you think about it, the number I gave before of roughly 200 individuals held without bail, we would obviously have to look at a county-by-county breakdown of that and I don't have that number in hand, but I know that it's available. Each county is going to have their own cases that are crying out for trial. There's no question. What we hope to do, we need to get a trial under our belt. We need to understand what it really means to try a case under these circumstances. And I would hope that with the reports coming in from BGS, BGS being responsible for the state courthouses is the one that is providing us the data and information to be able to say, yes, we can do trials in Bennington or Wyndham or Washington County. So we're still awaiting those reports from BGS on many of the state courthouses, but I hope that by March we'll be able to open up more courthouses because the change of venue, although it's possible, it's then prioritizing perhaps a Bennington case over a Wyndham case. The Wyndham case court is the one that's moving forward now because that's the one we've been working with since July, since the report that you referenced earlier came out. And I can explain to the committee what's involved in standing up even one court. But I'm, again, I am hopeful that by March, we'll be opening up more courts so that that issue of change of venue, it's there, but I'm hoping that we're not going to have to go there because then you're saying, setting up a criteria to say this case in Bennington is more important than another case in Wyndham or whatever county we're talking about. And that's where it becomes difficult. What one of the questions asked earlier when Eric was doing this presentation was if there had been challenges to the, right to a speedy trial? I'm not aware that a challenge has been made that has gone up to the Supreme Court. I know that I think very early on, there was a challenge by a detainee over the COVID conditions, in other words, seeking to be released from a detainee population because of COVID. And I believe that went to the Supreme Court. I'm not aware, Senator, I can find out, but if they're going on in the trial courts, they would have to obviously have a decision issued and then an appeal taken to the Supreme Court. I think there was one in Bennington and I believe Judge Valenti ruled that it, because of the pandemic. And I think I'd heard about that case, but the question would be then, did the individual appeal it to the Supreme Court? I don't believe so. Right, and so I don't think that there, I know there hasn't been a decision issued by the Supreme Court as it relates to AO 49 and the lack of jury trials. That's not to say that the longer it goes on, obviously we expect that issue will be raised. Pat, did you have anything to add or are there questions for the judge or Pat Gable? Before Pat jumps in. Oh, okay. I just want to give the committee just a quick snapshot of what it means to stand up a jury trial at this point. You know, I've been in the trade, if you will, the business for going on 45 years. And one of my first jobs was positions was as a deputy state's attorney in Washington County. And the reason I wanted to do that was to get trial experience, courtroom experience. And whether it's me or Senator Benning or any other attorney or judge understands that the jury trial process, in its simplest terms, you bring in 40, 50 members of the community to come up with a group of 12 to 14 individuals that sit in a jury box that's designed for 12 or 14 individuals in a courtroom with a court reporter and a witness chair, generally speaking, all in the same place. There's a process. It's almost become routine for those who are involved in it every day. This pandemic has completely revamped that whole process. I mean, we literally had to start from scratch in opening up a court. And by that, I mean, when that jury restart report came out in July, I immediately put together a group of a smaller group of trial judges to start that process of what does it mean to bring in a jury in this environment? And what it immediately meant was that in a court, like Wyndham where we normally would bring in 150 jurors or the initial summons, we doubled that number. And in doubling that number, we also required more time to process those jurors. We normally would go six weeks from the time we send out the first notice to a trial date. Because of the pandemic and the numbers involved, we move that to eight weeks, meaning it's two months from the time a notice goes out before that jury will come in. And so you can see, for instance, if we get the clearance to go ahead this week or next on opening up other courts, it'll be March at the earliest before those other courts are open. If you walked into the Wyndham Courthouse and we were fortunate because Dr. Bromage was able to come to Vermont and he was able to personally visit four or five of our courts, including Wyndham. And if you walked into the Wyndham Courthouse today, as opposed to what it looked like a year ago, it's changed dramatically. In other words, that jury box of 12 or 14 people, if the trial was sitting, there'd only be three people in that box. In order to socially distance, the others would be scattered around the courtroom. We had to move the witness chair. We had to move the court reporters positioned in the courtroom. We had to put up a different location for the council. In order for that trial to go forward in Wyndham, it was going to involve three courtrooms. Normally the jury will go from one courtroom to a waiting room, if you will, a room where during a break in a trial they'll go or they'll go for deliberation in a particular room. They might have lunch there. But for that trial, it was going to involve all three courtrooms in the Wyndham Courthouse. They needed the trial room courtroom that was going to be rearranged, as I explained. When they took a break, we would move them next door to another courtroom where they could socially distance of six feet. But we wanted them to remain in the building during the day. And so we were going to have to make arrangements for lunch in the only room that was large enough for that many people to sit down, eat and drop the mask and be able to converse. We needed the third courtroom. And ultimately what that meant was that any other proceedings going on in that courthouse that day would be moved probably to New Fane, the other courthouse in Brattleburg. So I just wanted the committee to understand that that's just an example of what it means to try to stand up a trial under these new conditions. Thank you. Senator Baruch has a question. Judge, I'm curious, on education, going back some months, we created an HVAC upgrade program and we allocated $16.5 million to bring school districts air quality handling up to the standard now required to mitigate the virus. Can you say anything about, I noticed in the administrative order, it talks about air quality as something that has to be considered. What is the general state of air quality in the state's courthouses? Does it need an infusion of CRF funds of that magnitude? So Senator, I'm going to give you the best answer I can, but having worked through some of these issues during the last 10 or 12 months, I was glad to appreciate the fact that I didn't go into engineering and stuck with law because it is a complicated issue. But as noted in the AO 49 and as we've seen, and certainly from Dr. Bromage's advice to us, airflow and circulation is critical to providing a safe form for these trials. I mean, what we're trying to do throughout this process is balance the rights to speedy trial due process that the litigants are entitled to public access to the courthouses and public safety by bringing in 50 or 60 members of the public in some fashion in a safe manner. And so the circulation is critical. The airflow is critical to that process. So I think one way of looking at it, and this is my own description, I'm looking at three tiers of courthouses. I start with the state courthouses, which are, BGS obviously is involved with those courts and that we are waiting for their reports as it relates to the state courthouses. And there's no question that in some of those courthouses we have had to increase the filters, terminology, MIRV 8s versus MIRV 13s and what is needed to maximize the airflow and air circulation within those buildings. So clearly there has been a need to invest money in those filters to improve that airflow. What kind of money I don't know off the top of my head, but that's certainly been an issue in some buildings. You then have the county courthouses that do not come within a BGS administration and we've hired an outside source to come in and evaluate those buildings. Many of the county courthouses as opposed to the state courthouses have limited or no air circulation, no air conditioning, no air flow in that sense. And so that, I look at that as a third tier of courthouses. We have not had anyone look at those buildings because under the circumstances in the middle of the winter with a closed building and closed doors and windows, we're just not gonna be able to open up those buildings during this time. So we're looking at them at different issues arise depending on which courthouse you're looking at. The reason I ask is we have a second infusion of money and potentially a third on the way. And it seems like in all of those bills there's gonna be latitude to upgrade ventilation systems. The program that I mentioned in the school systems was run by is currently still being run by Efficiency Vermont. And they were extremely efficient. They did $16.5 million worth of work in three months on hundreds of buildings. So I just throw it out there. That is an operation that is up and running. We might explore dovetailing it into these buildings that we're talking about. It would be, they wouldn't have the contacts that they have in the school districts, but they already have the contractors queued up and they have the administrative procedures for spending the money. So it might be worth thinking about rather than having them dismantle that program and start a new one. There's no question that that's something that we should look into because, as I said, the airflow air circulation within the courthouses is key to our reopening those courthouses. So either Pat or I are a combination of the two of us will follow up on that. And I thank you for that, Senator. I had to mute because there was a phone call in my background. Go ahead. Senator Benning. Senator Sears, I plan to spend a little bit of time with the judge this morning and I don't wanna hog the conversation, but I've got several questions and some comments. If you need to cut me off at any point in time, feel free to do so. Judge, I'm curious about several things. I'm gonna start out by saying I appreciate the obstacles that you have in front of you. And I don't wanna minimize my appreciation for those things having to be dealt with and I don't envy you your task moving forward. I do think, however, given the impression that the court system is virtually shut down, especially in the criminal arena, we have to start formulating a game plan moving forward where we all appear to be delivering a very concrete series of steps in order to get things moving again. I don't wanna quibble about whether the public perception is out there. I'm just gonna tell you that from a defense attorney's perspective, my filing cabinet has quadrupled in the number of files that are stuck. And I know I am not the only one in the criminal world that is actually feeling that pinch because the last vestige, sorry about that, I'm in downtown Linneville, the last place that we have leverage in getting cases resolved is the virtual threat of a jury trial about to proceed. And that's where the prosecution and the defense and the clients of the defense bar actually finally sit down and face off and resolve cases. We haven't been able to do that. And every single day is getting more and more frustrating because we haven't been able to have that kind of forced leverage, if you will, getting cases resolved. So I have some suggestions that I will start with. We have to establish a plan that we all agree to. I'm sure that we all agree to steps that you are taking in order to open up courthouses. But here's a couple of suggestions. I think that the judicial branch has to start pestering the executive branch immediately for recognition that you are a frontline group of people that need to be vaccinated. There isn't any question that the judicial branch of government is stuck in a holding pattern and will not be able to give people their constitutional rights unless and until we get to a point where the people working inside the buildings are comfortable in being there. As far as commencing jury trials, I think Senator Verruth had a thought and I'm growing more and more in favor of that thought. There is now a targeted population that will be receiving the first doses of this vaccine. That population should be the first targets for jury trial participants. And there may be all kinds of reasons why that's not a great idea or whatever, but the conversation about that should be in the middle of all of this because it provides the public at least with an understanding as to how you're taking steps to move forward to solve this crisis. I've got a series of questions that I'd like to know about that deal with administrative order 49. I'm wondering, I need to get to Joe. I would like to hear at least from comments from John Campbell and Matt Valerio this morning. And we've got about a half an hour left before we move on. I can suggest. Yeah, if there's a- Senator, if Senator Benning wants to, I apologize for interrupting, but if he wants to put some questions in writing to me, I'll be glad to respond to those. And if necessary, I can come back at another date to respond to those questions before the whole committee. I think the issue regarding the vaccination, I think we were gonna think of this next week. Senator Sears, I apologize for interrupting, but I just, I can respond to the suggestion of Senator Benning that we'd be in the executive branch. We, the Chief Justice and I did contact the executive branch several weeks ago when the vaccine rollout was first announced and inquired as to how we would best be in touch with the Department of Health regarding bringing the issues of the frontline workers in the judiciary, which would be security staff, judicial officers to a place of priority. At that point, we contacted them so early. I don't think the Department of Health had developed a plan yet. And so we've been waiting to hear back, but inform is not prioritizing by individual characteristics. You're freezing up or you are, I'm not sure. I think it's Pat. So I've taken my video, is that better? No. Is that better? That's better. Not better, okay. Yeah, keep going now, Pat. Can you? Okay, I'll try. Okay. So we... Pat, I'm going to jump back in and say, I think I've got, I have the gist of what you're saying and I'm going to suggest that it's time for all of us to do the same again by contacting the administration and all act in concert because this system is in a state of frozen animation and we need to unfreeze it and we can't do it with a magical brush. It's got to be done piecemeal, but we've got to have a plan. Peggy has the name of the person from the administration that we need to hear from. And I thought we were going to hear from them next week. And Peggy, if you would add to the questions for them is what are the possibilities of having any inmates, guards, judicial officers, including attorneys and so forth in the vaccination schedule? So that's, I think the question that Senator Benning is raising. Nick, I think the remainder of my questions to Judge Greerson are probably going to be asked by Matt DeLario and John Campbell. So I'm going to back off from the rest of my questions for now and Judge, if I don't hear them asking the right questions, I'll send you a personal note. Right, thank you. Matt. I'm glad to respond. I was going to say that I'm happy to yield to Senator Benning to give him more time for questions. A lot of what I'm hearing here is the type of thing that I would be talking about already but whatever you'd like. No, I just, I need to end at 10 30. That's all. But either one of you. I'll let the Senator ask the questions he wants to ask. I'm not, in these meetings, I'm not typically asking Judge Greerson questions. So. True. I'll try to make it as quickly as possible. Judge, according to the administrative order, there is a procedure for a defendant to request authorization from you for a jury trial. What is that process and where is that procedure available for us to understand? Is it in exist? Question. Is there a process that is in writing that instructs us on how to you or the court system in general for permission to go forward on a jury trial? The process, Senator, would, in my view, would be you would apply to, if you're in Caledonia, you would apply to the local judge to say, you know, a motion for a speedy trial. And then the judge would have to rule on that motion and bring it to my attention. But I mean, I think the issue is right now, for instance, Caledonia is not a court that so far has been evaluated and approved to go forward. So the process is one where under the jury restart plan that you saw, the individual unit, if you will, Caledonia between the judge there and the staff would submit a plan to me. For approval of the jury trial in that court. Now, some of the judges, some of the courts have provided me with a plan awaiting the evaluation from the BGS, for instance, in Caledonia. Others are waiting to get that evaluation before they submit a plan. So depending on which unit I'm talking about, it's gonna be a combination of the unit plan provided by the judge and the staff and that report from BGS in the state courts in order for me to say, okay, this court is ready to conduct a jury trial. So if I understand you correctly, if a defendant asks for a speedy trial, which is their constitutional right, right now in Caledonia County, that would not be available to them would that be fair to say? That would be fair to say. Okay, is at this time? Let me say this, Senator, again, that motion has to go before the sitting judge handling that and however they rule on that, what I'm saying is when it's not available, that court at this point has not been approved for jury work. So how the local judge handles that issue, I would leave to them, how they address it within the context of a motion for speedy trial. I just wanna be clear about the process. Right now, the Caledonia courthouse is not available for jury trials. So even if I brought a motion before Judge Harris, who's currently sitting there, it is inevitable that he would rule, it's not gonna happen, Benning, that's just the way it is. And I don't wanna leave the conversation with some kind of an impression that there is a process for defendants to be able to get a speedy trial right now in Caledonia County because it is just not possible. There's no blame to lay out there, but it's just not possible. I wanna know how a prosa defendant, for those of you that don't know what that means, they're representing themselves. A prosa defendant would have to go through the same process. In other words, they'd have to petition Judge Harris for their speedy trial. How would they understand or get to the point where they recognize that even if they approach Judge Harris right now, it's not gonna happen. How would they know that? Well, that just highlights the issue of self-representation. As you know, a self-represented litigant is bound by the same rules and procedures that you as an attorney are bound by. And so they would have to, for instance, make sure they've looked at the judiciary website where they will see AO 49, where they will see this jury restart reporting. I mean, they would have to avail themselves of the same information that you have in advising your clients. And but they would again have to start that process by a motion for speedy trial that goes before Judge Harris. Now, Judge Harris, you know, every judge is independently appointed and they can exercise their discretion on a particular case. And whether they deny the motion because the court isn't available or agree that the defendant is entitled, that's where that decision has to be made at the local level. I don't wanna leave a hanging chair if you will. My understanding is that if a petition is brought right now to Judge Harris, you would have to literally tell Judge Harris if he approached you and said, what do you think? That the Caledonia County Courthouse is not available for this process. That's right. The only logical conclusion I can pull from that is, the motion will be denied. So the next question would be, is a speedy trial right under the Constitution has some components to it that the Supreme Court looks at and deciding whether to approve of such a motion. One of which is, has the defendant taken affirmative action to request a trial? And I'm worried that this time, when people already know, they can't get a trial in Caledonia County. I don't know why they would bother to send in a motion for a speedy trial if they know that, but if they don't, is that going to be taken against them in a determination of whether or not they effectively acted affirmatively to have a speedy trial? I think you've come about as close to asking me for an advisory opinion as, I can't answer that Senator. I understand the issue that you've raised, but I don't think it's my place to be able to answer that specific question. Okay, I submit that we owe that answer to the public at large. I understand all the problems that are associated with it, but I submit we owe that answer to the public at large. There's probably a lot of other questions I could ask, because I hear you needing to move on, Dick. Well, it's not just moving on, but I think it is at the heart of the, there's two issues. One is people are being held without receiving a trial who are not able to either make bail or I have no bail, they're held without bail. So that's one issue. You have 308 people that are on detention. Their ability to get a speedy trial is not possible. We've heard the reasons why, and it would violate the governor's executive order as it is now to try to do that. Maybe Wyndham County can hold a trial, but that doesn't help my Bennington County. So one of my questions is about other venues if that's been considered. I think I raised that earlier. And for example, the auditorium that, in Barrett, was gonna be used for the house and they, but they chose to do it remotely. Could that be used for a jury trial? Those are the questions that I think. I'd like to have maybe, if the judge wants to come back with the answers, but I think your question is asking for an opinion and be like going to the Supreme Court. I don't know what the status of Judge Valenti's ruling on the Bennington case is. Maybe either Matt or John, no. Dick, I wanna just jump in with your comment about the 300 that are incarcerated. There are thousands of other individuals out there whose lives are on hold. They're not incarcerated. But when I have a client walking into my office right now who wants a jury trial, I have to look them square in the eyes and say, you know what, you can have a jury trial, but it's probably gonna be about four to five years down the road before you get there. And a lot of these people are subject to rather onerous conditions of release like a 24 hour a day curfew requirement. So it's not just those who are incarcerated that are in serious trouble here. I just wanted to make that point that there's a whole lot of other people out there, many, many more than just those 300. Do we have any idea of the numbers? I don't. And that's a question I was hoping to get answered today. Number of pending criminal cases, is that what you're asking? Yeah. Yeah, I don't have that number, but I can certainly get it. Then you get that for next week. I can get that to the committee. I will say that, and I know that you've got other witnesses. I will say this, we need to open up these courts. I recognize that. When we do open up these courts, jury trials are going to be the priority, meaning that a court normally might have three or four days a month devoted to jury trials. We've got to double that. We've got to make jury trials the priority. And so that's going to have an impact on defenders. It's gonna have an impact on the state's attorneys, but we have got to make this case and the population you're referring to, Senator, people detained and even those on conditions of release. But the priority in my view anyway, would be those who are held without bail. The next would be anyone who's held on bail. And then we'll get into the trials on cases where individuals are out on conditions of release, but the priority has to be with those cases. And if necessary, where I can, I anticipate bringing in retired judges so that when we do a draw, we will have judges available to a please on one hand, but when we're bringing that jury in, we're bringing that jury in to try cases and to move cases. And I appreciate what Senator Benning has said. I know from experience, both as an attorney and as a judge that nothing moves cases, like the potential for a jury trial. And I understand how important that is. When we open up, we're going to do everything we can to make those cases and that docket a priority. Thank you, Judge. I wonder if I could hear from John Campbell briefly and then we will need to discuss this further clearly next week when we get more information. I think the Department of Health or the Agency of Human Services will be able to provide some of our answers to the question. Senator Campbell, right. Now, Senator Bruce, you should not be laughing. There's been other things that have happened in these strange times in the last 10 or 11 months. So first of all, thank you very much for having me testify today. And everybody that's spoken today from Judge Gerson and Senator Benning are absolutely corrected. We've got a major problem on our hands when it comes down to when the doors open up again. First of all, I'd like to address quickly, I'm looking, I've got 10 minutes for your 10-30 break. But the vaccination, one of the things that you, it's a good idea as far as if you do have a jury trial, let's see, not getting all the court personnel and jurors vaccinated, but there's still a question out there as to whether the person even vaccinated, whether they can still spread the virus. So there's some other questions that need to be asked there. You know, a big concern we have, I have had many conversations with our state's attorneys and addressed the issue of the backlog and everyone knows it and everyone realizes that they're a problem. And we've been doing everything we can to make really flexible offers out on cases right now. And, you know, the defense bar for the, I'd say for the majority in the most part, they're not jumping at any offer right now because they realize that the chances of their clients getting to trial are it's gonna be slim next to none, especially misdemeanor cases that probably won't happen for at least a year with the backlog. So, and of course the defense attorney has the obligation to their clients to try to do the best for them representation-wise. But we are trying to do what we can to get these cases settled. What we found the best way, and actually Senator Sears was in Bennington County where they had some of the retired judges come in and have, they weren't official judicial conferences, but they had the meetings between both parties with the defense and the state's attorney to discuss the case and to see about trying to mediate some type of resolution. Those are working really well. Erica told me that she found it to be extremely helpful and they were able to clear a lot of cases. Now, my understanding was that the court administrator's office was going to, they had the COVID money to bring in the retired judges. So I would ask them and also advocate that they try to make sure that the other counties are doing the same thing. We're having, one of the things we're finding is that there's such an inconsistency throughout the state as to what the judges, some judges will make sure that the hearings continue on. Some are asking for in-person hearings, others are not. And in fact, there's a couple of counties that have delayed all arrangements until June. And that's just going to continue in the backlog. So I don't judge Gerson, he and I have been talking and he was going to get back to me on the arraignment issue. But those are serious issues because number one, for the defendant who's sitting out there and not knowing what's going to happen, but also for when the court's open, I can tell you straight out, this is not, I'm not leaking any information to the other side that they don't already know, but we do not have the personnel to be able to handle these cases because it's not when you do a trial or even just handling everything else because every, all of the other normal cases will continue to come into the offices. Right now, we have in the offices, the state's attorneys, they have, most offices only have one secretary and one administrator. That is not enough to help. And the fact is that when you have just two attorneys or three attorneys in one office and the caseloads are up now, getting three, 400 cases for them by the time this comes around, they're not gonna be able to handle it. And I think the defense is aware of that. And unfortunately, we've got to do something about it. And I don't have the answer at this point, but I can tell you, it's going to be a resource draw drain on us, I think on the judiciary and also on the defense. So I think I kept my promise centers here so I get my... No, I appreciate that, John. We've opened up the can of worms. Thank you, Senator Benning for raising the questions. Matt, do you have anything to add at this point? Matt Valero. I think the biggest thing that I would wanna talk about in the couple of minutes that I have, and I was asked in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, what are you doing about getting people trials? And I said, there's an honest reality here, is that I don't know that there's anybody in the justice system who can do anything about getting anybody trials until they're vaccinated. That is going to be the thing that brings us out of this. I did some research about what they did with trials during the Spanish Flu in the early 1900s. They had some outdoor trials during warmer months, that kind of thing, but aside from even something like that, I don't see how infrastructure-wise Vermont is physically capable of providing safe trials for everybody who has to be involved until vaccinations take place. I concur with John Campbell in that what is happening right now while our detention numbers are not enormous, and frankly, having the numbers on a Wednesday, they're probably a little lower than what they would be if you took the same number on a Monday. You're easily down 50 to 75 compared to that day. So our numbers aren't, they're clearly not as high as they have been as pending number, but they're not as low as they show today, I don't believe. The biggest issue, though, is that we've got all of these cases that are building up that aren't detained. I mean, if you have a misdemeanor case, you're literally talking about years and years before we get through to those cases, if you're gonna have a trial or even motion hearings because there's limited number of judges to hear those things. So to me, there are two stages of this. One is opening, and that opening is gonna require us, I think, to have vaccinations. My Wyndham office sent me an email last night that said, I know they're looking at us again for potentially opening for jury trials, then they went through a list of our immunocompromised people who work in the Wyndham Public Defense Office. And the managing attorney said, I don't think we can do trials unless we have vaccinations. So that's gonna be one stage. And then the next stage is once everything opens up again, we are going to deal with these pending cases that Senator Benning was talking about. Going forward. Now, you can only push so many cases through so many judges. So I don't... Backlogs are an interesting thing when they're pending cases because you can't try two cases at once. You can only try however many you can try. I will say to try to quickly answer the issue about filings around the state. I know there have been speedy trial motions around the state filed. We've basically gone nowhere and at the trial level, the biggest issue is that nobody has an answer of how to deal with it even if they went forward and said, yes, I'll give you a speedy trial. Now what? Because there is nothing to do. Effectively, I think that for trials, the entire state is shut down. I will say that it is not for lack of effort with the people involved. Judge Griesen, interim commissioner Baker, myself, Cheryl, I always say her name wrong. Dale Crook, Al Cormier, and others from Corrections have routinely been getting together to work on the communication issues that she was talking about with arraignments, and they're not resolved, but it takes a little bit of time to put in brand new infrastructure to try to work these things through. In the meantime, what might be a month of working on things for us in government sounds like not that long a time, but if you're sitting in jail and you can't get ahold of your lawyer, that's a really long time. And it's a very difficult thing to deal with. It's not for lack of effort by anybody involved to try to resolve this, but I honestly think the only way we're going to open the courts to trials is by vaccination. And as far as I know, right now, public defenders, prosecutors, and court personnel aren't really even on the list. Well, I think next Friday we'll devote next Friday to both the civil trial issue and this issue with the agency human services, but both you and John Campbell and Senator Benning have made us more aware of the huge numbers of people who are charged with crimes who may be awaiting resolution of that that could go on for years before their backlog is addressed. And that is, I can only imagine if I were charged with something I didn't think I was guilty of and not being able to get it resolved for years. Well, I do think that there comes a time when, and I've been researching this and talking to our appellate division about it, where we are going to be looking for the mass dismissal of hundreds and hundreds of misdemeanor cases, particularly that are going to be sitting for very long periods of time. Witnesses disappearing. Defendants potentially disappearing. Complaining witnesses disappearing. Evidence not being available. All of the things that are potentially contemplated is a criminal rule 48B that allows for dismissal of minor cases, depending upon a whole number of circumstances. But this isn't anything anybody anticipated, but perhaps to free up the system to focus on the more important cases in a meaningful way, it's going to require the resolution by dismissal of hundreds and hundreds of minor cases. Peggy, could you and Eric work with Matt and John Campbell and Judge Geerson on the questions that we have for the agency human services so that they're clear as to what we'd like to talk about next Friday. So are we going to have them come in this Friday on the vaccine rollout? No, next Friday. Next Friday. A week from this Friday. I'm sorry, say that again. A week from this Friday, we would do the vaccine rollout, the civil trials, and a little more on the criminal trials. I don't know. The civil is a completely different, but they're backed up tremendously as well. So I just wanted the agency not to get taken by surprise by the questions we have. Much of it is the order of vaccination for people within the criminal justice and the trial court system. So we did have it on the agenda for this Friday, so you want me to take that out, right? We had it from 10. Oh, we did this already. Oh, okay. Yeah, this Friday's fine. Yeah, this Friday's fine. I wasn't. Okay. We'll do the civil trials next Friday. Okay. Criminal. We can hear from the agency. Yes, Senator Benning. I want to reach judge. Carrerson and John Campbell before we go in the spirit of trying to decrease some of the court backlog. There has got to be an explosion lately of modifications of conditions of release of people who are not being held but are being subject to things that have totally disrupted their lives. If there's any possible way, John, in your case, to simply pass a message out and say, guys, take a deep breath and think twice about the mod of the conditions you're seeking to have imposed. They may end up doing it anyway, but that's a message that they really ought to have. And Judge Greer, so I passed the same request along to you that when judges are looking at these conditions of release, they also take a deep breath and decide whether or not this is critical in this particular case, because my cases have just blossomed in modification petitions and that can only be clogging the court system if I'm not the only one faced with that. Senator Benning, you're preaching to the choir. In my opinion, there are only two conditions of release that have a merit and that is no weapons or firearms, dangerous weapons and no contact in the given case. For the bulk of the conditions are, we're just fooling ourselves if we think that imposing a condition that someone that hasn't had a license for 10 years and we impose a condition that they shouldn't drive is going to change their behavior. But those are the kinds of cases that are building up because of these conditions. If there was ever a time to not impose the so-called standard conditions, it is now because we are just building cases that are essentially, we've made them crimes. When if someone is driving without a license and they're stopped again, that's the crime. By adding some of these other conditions to it, it's just, it's endless. And where we see it, and I don't want to take up the committee's time, but last year we spent a considerable amount of time talking about surcharges. I have seen cases with three pages of plea agreement that everything is run concurrent and there's 10 conditions of release violations that there's no sentence imposed, but each one of them carries $150, someone walks out of that courthouse, $1500 worth of surcharges. I agree with you. And Senator, I'm more than happy to pass that message on. Yeah, Senator, I'm more than happy to pass that message on. And I think it's a good one. Again, as you know, that we're not the ones that make the decisions on the final decisions on the conditions. If those that are in the meeting now can be available on Friday morning at 1045, when we hear from the deputy secretary, the agency human services in charge of the rollout might be appreciated. Thank you. I'll be there. Great. Thank you, Senator. I've got to take a break. Marley is calling for my, you may hear him in the background. I'll be back at 11. I mean, excuse me at 10 of, 10 of 11, 10 of 11. Thank you.