 Good morning. It is January, Friday the 22nd of January 2021. This is Senate Judiciary Committee and this morning's topic is civil trials and how that is impacting. We talked last week about criminal trials and the impact on the system. And this week we're talking about civil trials, looking at any legislation that we might do that would help move this process along, recognizing that COVID-19 has created more of a backlog than was already there. I think we're well aware that there's a tremendous backlog in several cases before COVID-19 hit. Now it's been exasperated. So our first witness is Christopher Maley, representing the Mont Association for Justice. Chris, take it away please. Hi, this is actually Greg Weimer. I'm starting in front of Chris today. Okay. So I am the chair of the Bar Association's Practice and Procedure Committee, and Terry asked me to appear today to give you guys some anecdotal evidence of how this backlog is affecting the practice. And I'm also by happenstance on the Bar Association's COVID-19 committee. And we recently did a survey with the bar, you know, feeling out some of these issues and we got some interesting results. I would say out of 2200 members roughly we had only 275 responses or so so it probably doesn't qualify as a scientifically valid poll, but I think it still provides some interesting anecdotal information for you to consider. With respect to the economic impact, 55% of our respondents reported that they've had an adverse impact on cash flow and billable work as a result of the pandemic. We didn't parse out exactly how much of that would be related to the lack of jury trials going on, but I suspect that it does play a pretty significant role. For anyone who litigates obviously with the courts in their current condition, it's going to impact their overall ability to, you know, process cases and get get work done. Additionally, about 30% of the law offices reported receiving payroll protection plan loans, which I think is another indicator of, you know, the kind of impact that's been taking place. I think of the attorney well being 70% reported feeling isolated, and about 60% reported feeling worried or afraid. And I think the, you know, it's important to keep in context, not just the lack of jury trials but the overall effect that this is having, because I think that plays into the overall practice of law here. I believe some individual statements from people who took part in the poll. And some people are really the gist of it is that some people are really struggling to cope with this. And so I think anything we can do to help, you know, get cases rolling through the courts in a more normal fashion the sooner we can do that I think the better it will be for the overall health and and welfare for the bar at large. My personal anecdotal experience with the practice has been that cases are obviously languishing. And it brings to mind the old adage that justice delays justice denied. My experience has been that the process of working a case through from soup to nuts in terms of discovery has certainly suffered because there's no feeling of pressure for parties to get things done on a timely manner. So I've seen a real drop off in the lack of prompt responses to discovery requests. I think it's a case where, you know, if you have a task, it expands to fill the available time. And I think that's one of the situations here is that people don't feel that pressure of knowing that they're on a court docket that be called. And so cases tend to stretch out a bit more because of that. It's certainly not more efficient. And I think, you know, in terms of cases running longer. It all ultimately is going to cost the clients more to get things resolved. And I, you know, I don't think that this is a situation where solely plaintiffs are harmed I think there's also some harm to defendants as well in civil cases. And so interest rates on known damages continue to accrue at 12% a year. And that's really through no fault of any party it's just the fact of the matter is that cases aren't getting resolved. Could you, could you, could you please expand on that 12% a year and the interest rates of that impacts litigants. So, take for example in a personal injury case, if a person has a known and quantifiable amount of hard damages such as medical bills, free judgment interest under the statute begins to run when the case is filed, and the statutory interest rate minus 12% a year. So, the longer these cases take to resolve through no fault of the parties that interest continues to run, and will be collectible, ultimately when any judgment is rendered. So that's a potential problem for litigants that you know they have to occur that expense through no fault of their own. I'm not sure what this what this committee is considering in terms of a resolution. The Vermont bars Association physician is essentially that we understand the problem we think it's significant, but we do have a lack of consensus and the members. We don't propose a solution ourselves but we're very interested in hearing, you know, what a thoughtful review and a potential resolution might look like so that we can present it to our membership, and see if we can form some kind of consensus to get behind that, but we are very much interested in this. We all do respect sir that's pretty useless. You want us to, I mean I was trying to hold a hearing today to hear your solutions not. The Vermont bar association. I, you know you come to us with a problem, and we've tried to resolve an e file for example. We have a bill in here to deal with it but I asked us to, who are not practitioners of the law. For our solutions I was hoping that you would offer the month excuse not you personally but my bar association has some suggestions. I was hoping that the month association justice actions. So I kind of take offense to the idea that it's our that we have solutions. I. If you have any thoughts on how we could solve this problem, like having jury trials and alternative locations for example, the very auditorium. To be appropriate that sort of thing. Certainly comment on that. I have seen instances in other jurisdictions such as Florida and Texas, where they have gone to remote trials. And so that there's potential there for either a hybrid trial where the attorneys and clients could appear in court with sufficient room and space to be safe and have the jury of what year to take place remotely. And that way we wouldn't need to have as many people in the building at the same time, and then proceed with the trial and have the jurors participate remotely. That would I think take a certain amount of economic support because the potential jury jury pool would have to have access to sufficient internet services and computer equipment to be able to appear remote. That is something that other states are looking at. That's that's very helpful. Does the care exact fun. The original I don't know what's left of the judiciary portion but and the latest one may have money that we can use as well so that's what I had in mind I appreciate that. I think it's going to be a try and see approach to see, you know, maybe try a couple of different alternatives and see what works smoothly. Maybe have a, you know, a sample project proceed with one trial and see what lessons can be learned from that. I think some of the potential pitfalls of that approaches. It's obviously not the same thing as have having a jury during a trial where you can observe their mannerism as a group. So there, there are certain things that some trial lawyers might not find appealing about that, but we have to balance that against the fact that trials aren't taking place at all. And we have to find a way forward. Senator Benning had a question. Yeah, so I'm a criminal defense attorney and I've been doing it for 37 years so I understand things mostly from the criminal angle. But it occurred to me when you spoke about doing things remotely with the jury. You can understand what dear as long as we've got the technical support to back up a lot dear situation. But when you actually get to, would you say what that is Joe. Yeah, that's when a large group of people is brought to the courthouse, and then they go through a process of being picked for a jury panel. So if you consider the large group of people as the jury pool from that pool, there is a small group of people that end up on the jury panel itself, after they've been questioned by the respective council. But in the jury pool situation that larger group of people, the technological hurdles could be fairly substantial just to make sure for instance here in the Northeast Kingdom. I would like to ask these guests as to what your access for Internet is number one and whether or not you have equipment that's got a camera and a microphone attached to it is another problem. But it occurred to me the other day that as these waves of vaccines are being implemented. What do you think about the possibility of taking the first wave those 75 and up and developing a pool from that group. I know there are other problems that might be associated with that but I just asking you to roll that around in your head for a while to think about how do we proceed because this is going to be an avalanche. When we are all finally vaccinated and we get back to normal. And you know from your work in the civil arena, and I from my work in the criminal arena. There are so many cases on the back burner right now we've never seen anything like this. So when this avalanche happens I would prefer it to be a smaller sized avalanche. If there's a way to get from here to there in some piecemeal fashion and it just makes sense to me that as you develop these waves of people who are immunized. It's not to be a way as long as the court staff are also immunized and that includes the respective lawyers that you begin to minimize that avalanche later on down the road. Right, and I think that's an interesting concept. What I've read from other jurisdictions who have done these proceedings remotely is there is sometimes a question as to whether or not you're actually getting it. What the law would consider a jury of your peers, especially in the criminal realm, where you're limited to having people with the economic resources to have sufficient internet and computer equipment to be able to be in the jury pool. Maybe a similar question as to your suggestion here using people who are in that first tranche of people getting vaccinated who would be in the, you know, 65 to 70 year old category whether or not that constitutes strictly speaking a jury of peers. So it's a potential issue but I think under the circumstances it might make sense to move forward in that capacity as you say, otherwise, when jury trials start again there's going to be such a backlog there's just no way to work through them. And it's going to be a two to three year period to work through the backlog along. So I think in terms of what potential solutions are we'll have to compromise a little bit on what is the normal case right. In the criminal world, the parties could technically wave any argument about this not being a jury of my peers. I mean I've got guys sitting in the jail right now, they don't care what the jury itself looks like they need to have something happen so they can get out of jail. I would envision that some of them at least would be happy to have a jury, a bunch of old folks, but bottom line is we've got nothing right now and somebody's got to start coming up with ideas on how to solve this. Right, I think with a, you know, an open and knowing waiver in court, where the defendant signed a waiver of that right in front of the judge and understand what they're doing that I think that would be perfectly acceptable. I assume it would be for civil cases as well. Yes, I don't see why it wouldn't. But I just know anecdotally that the defense bar pushes back pretty hard on a lot of these issues, especially there's been talk of proceeding with six persons civil juries. And there'd almost certainly be a challenge from the defense bar if that actually took place. As I feel my own personal position is, I would like to see something done to address this backlog is just not tenable to have this continue. And by the time the general population is vaccinated we're probably looking at another year before, you know that the general population would be able to serve in a jury so I think your suggestion is interesting and should be looked at. I don't know what the backlog is in the civil arena but I'm imagining it's the same as what we're facing in the criminal arena. There is at this moment in time if somebody came into my office and we decided they needed a trial. I've got to tell them it could be five or six years before that ever happens. We just have no way of dealing with it otherwise. I guess I'll stop. I've made my point. Yeah, under the roof that's gone. I do think that's an interesting idea Joe. I know that the committee scheduled to hear testimony from the Department of Health on vaccines. One of the things I'm not clear in my mind about is apparently if you're vaccinated, you yourself are protected but you can carry the virus still. So if we were to go on thinking about this idea, it would have to be not just the people on the jury who were vaccinated but the entire, you know, human infrastructure surrounding them, including others in the courthouse. I think I agree with that as my understanding and by the way, since you brought it up, Peggy has been working overtime trying to get the agency human services to meet with us on this issue. I know that Mike Smith decided that he wanted to be the one presenting to us and obviously he just is in quarantine right now so it's difficult to get together with us, but we are still trying to do that but I do think that alternative venues. The discussion in Wyndham County was there at three courtrooms I believe that they were planning on using where criminal trials and I think fewer jury members like six jury members. If the, if the parties agreed or H whatever the number is might help resolve some of these issues. Go ahead Greg appreciate your time. Sure, thank you. Any other comments. I understand that the administrative judge has undertaken attempts to improve the ventilation in certain courtrooms that would help you just mentioned to be able to proceed, perhaps with smaller jury pools. And I'm not sure where that project is at this point but I know that that was something that they had in their court reopening plan. I think if they can make progress with that and go with smaller jury pools, then perhaps that's a way forward as well. Other questions for Greg. And Greg you're representing Terry croissants. Is it that. Yes, I'm in her stead for the Vermont bar association in my capacity of the practice and procedure committee. And then go on to Chris Maley. Great. Thank you. Thank you Chairman Sears I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the committee this morning and talk to you about my perspective on the civil justice system right now and when I say mine I also include that of the Vermont Association for justice which makes up about 200 trial attorneys who are bringing claims in civil cases in Vermont and more importantly our clients. And I think a little bit about the impact on attorneys I'd like to shift gears a little bit and talk about the problem for monitors and those I represent the threat of a civil jury trial is the leverage that makes this system work. And we don't have that leverage right now on my side of the aisle and so what happens is, I make a demand, what's called a demand for settlement in the vast majority of cases. And so I'm going to go to Mr. Vermonor who was trying to bring a claim is going to an insurance company and saying, we would like you to settle this case for X amount of money. It's fair trade value for the harms that you're insured caused by their negligent conduct, and let's project out what a trial would look like. And try to come to some kind of compromise. And that is a threat. That is a statement that says there's a next step. Well, the insurance industry doesn't have any worry that there's a next step. We literally are asking them to make payments out of the kindness of their heart and you can imagine how that works. We are at a stalemate. The message that I would like to the committee to get from the plaintiff's bar is that the system right now is broken. It doesn't mean that cases aren't settling here and there, but they're settling in a way that is unfair that are lower values. They have no ability to push. And, you know, most cases settle at mediation. And I'm not. I think mediation is a good answer. But when you go to mediation, that process works because there is that next step to go to. And so now when you go to mediation and we're in zoom, the mediator take has a private session with my client and the mediator says something along the lines of what Senator Benning just said. You want to go forward, right? Okay, we don't know when trials going to happen. We don't know what it's going to look like. We don't know if they're when, you know, hang on, you have mortgage payments, you have medical bills, you can't pay you have lost wages. Hang on. You know, you should consider that in terms of what you're doing. And what does that do? What does that do to the system? So far, not good things for Vermonters. And my colleagues have the similar stories to tell. Right. And I talked to the most busy mediator in the state yesterday about this and that's a conversation that happens in all these cases. And so there are jury trials and civil system in Vermont are rare, but that's not the important piece as much as the idea that there is a calendar with a docket with a deadline with a jury draw. And as Senator Benning would attest, there are courts in the state that will put 15 cases on jury draw for a certain day in criminal context, probably a lot more. And you'll look at that list and you'll say there's not enough hours in the day for those cases to all jury selected, but the judges know that the pressure associated with being on that list gets the parties to talk. And then there are compromises all of a sudden there are resolutions. We don't have that. I have a case that was scheduled for trial in May. It has just languished. Nothing has happened other than an attempt for opening discovery again for more work done on the defense side past all the deadlines have expired. What it means for plaintiffs is that they had they have no access to justice what it means for insurance companies is they can sit on their money. They can have it in the stock market. They can earn the great returns, and they have no pressure to do anything. This is a boom for the insurance industry pandemic, and in this in this arena. And so I like to pick up on Greg's part where he talked about that the VBA has a hard time with coming up with a position here. Here's the real tension that's happening in Vermont. The plaintiff's bar says, let's do six. Let's do six jurors when when Governor Scott lifts his, you know, safety requirements and we can get back to work. The way we can get the wheels turning faster is to have half the amount of people in there. The court officers exposed to half the amount of people when the jury draws are happening. Half the costs, and we can do this in a fair way. The defense says no. But but the part that I want to leave the committee to be left with is that this is not a two sided issue these with the plaintiffs bar are the ones that are trying to get in court the defense bar are the ones trying to say we don't want to go to court so this is not the bar can figure this out on our own. What the Vermont Association for Justice has advocated. I and Jim Levin's wrote a letter to the Supreme Court saying, enter in order saying that now trials need to be done with six people. And I'm asking the committee the same thing. If a statute could be passed that says six, then we will have a vehicle to move forward. There are some on the defense side that suggests that there's constitutional issues with with a six person jury and civil case. The Vermont Constitution does not require 12 it does not state that 12 are required. There are cases from Civil War era 1860s and around that say, a common law a jury in Vermont was made up of 12 men. Well, we have unprecedented times. We have an issue of safety. We have an issue of backlog that's going to have legs as people have talked about for years. And so that all the 12 men idea needs to be revisited. And the Supreme Court has the power to do that the legislature has the power to do that. And we strongly urge that action be taken now. And for perspective, six person juries are not unheard of they've been happening in Vermont and federal court and civil cases since 1973. I've tried those cases in federal court. I've talked to judges in federal court. They don't have a problem with six person juries. I think they're about 13 states that have six person juries and civil cases. So, it would not be, you know, moving heaven and earth to make that shift. The conventional thought on the defense side is that they would prefer 12. And I'm not speaking for the defense bar. There are some attorneys who have agreed to six as far as I understand I haven't had that experience. In my case is I've asked let's do, let's agree to six and the answer has been Liberty Mutual says no. And they can't they have the power to say no and we can file motions with the court to see if the judges will grant that and force the parties to have six but that's what we're at that's what the ask is today for this committee is to get the discussion going about passing a statute or the Supreme Court entering order. Senator Bruce. Yes. Well, no, actually, I, I do. Oh, sorry, sorry, taking your role, but I do have, I do have a question before. Sure. A question for Eric actually, who's online. And I, my recollection is we did that bill a few years ago. I don't know where it went, but that we introduced a bill on smaller number of jurors, maybe it was a eight and not six. My recollection is we, we had testimony on that a few years ago. I think that's right. And I also think there's, there's a significant question raise about the constitutionality under the Vermont Constitution there's a couple of older cases. Early 20th century cases in Vermont that specifically say that the jury right trial and the Vermont Constitution is for a 12 person jury. So I think, I think there's concern about whether or not that's permissible. You could try it certainly and let that, as I say, those are older cases. So maybe, maybe a resolution would be different today. That's certainly possible. But I think that came up as a, a significant concern. Can you, can you have somebody research to see where that bill. I do remember. Yeah. And I have those cases. I actually looked at this issue just a few weeks ago for any different context. So I can send those along too. I might have introduced. Senator Sears, there was also, I've been before. And maybe this is what you're thinking of that there was a push and committee looked at it, including judges and thought it was okay and it never was passed but for non unanimous jury. Yeah, something that I taught. Okay. Yep. I don't know about six, but we did, we did discuss non unanimous and that, that did not, we still need 12 unanimous in Vermont. That's that you've never had. I don't mind having hearings on the issue. Thank you. Certainly related to Senator Bruce, you've had a question. And, and maybe part of it's been answered now but I was thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong anybody. If we pass a statute, it can still be immediately challenged, then it has to go through the entire process which takes us nowhere. So it seems like an order entered by the Supreme Court is the only thing that would really reliably speak to the problem in terms of time. Am I correct in that. Can I answer that. It would be challenged, but right away is, I don't know if it would be described that way I think what would have to happen with their, there'd have to be a judge who had a trial that went all the way through with the six person jury and then the constitutionality of that would have to be questioned there'd have to be some right issue or couldn't be as the statute pass someone says we don't know if I'm if I'm the defense bar. So those six member juries and a judge and panels of six member jury, couldn't I ask the Supreme Court for a stay. Yeah, maybe an interlockatory appeal. Yes. Yeah, okay. Yeah, and so I agree. That's why we wrote the letter to the Supreme Court saying, basically in essence, if you're trying to weigh constitutional infringements. There's no trials now. And if you're demanding 12 we're going to have no trials for a long time to come. So is that a greater infringement on the Vermont Constitution to have no trials at all, or to have trials of six. That's the, that's the question like the committee to consider and I think the Supreme Court should consider, because I think not to steal. But what I expect he's going to say is that the studies he has so far say the courts aren't safe for six. I mean I'd say for 12 I'm sorry the ventilation so the only way we're going to do them when we do open up are to have six. And then my last question is, it sounds from your testimony as though there's been an ongoing back and forth between the defense and plaintiff bars. To a certain extent, to the extent that you know what each other's numbers are have have you explored the obvious middle ground. Yeah, yeah, I'm open minded to all thoughts but I guess what I'd leave this committee with is the idea that the bar can work this out on our own without an order from the Supreme Court without a statute. I don't think is going to happen. You know I've, I never say never I've I've talked about zoom jury draws I'm open to that I'm open to hybrid trials. I'm open to Senator Benning's thing. Thinking anything that can get the wheels going again, we have to keep an open mind about these are not conventional time so if we're talking about cases from 1860. They're not going to work anymore. That was a common question and then send her away. I think I see your hand up at and that's why I'm going. Oh, no, I didn't know you're scheduled to just. I'm happy to wait till my turn. Okay, I'm sorry there's a hand. That was my hand. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Senator White. Well, I just, Eric, are you going to give us the I just decided that it was unconstitutional to have less than 12 because I can't find that anywhere in the Constitution at all. It does say unanimous, but it doesn't say. I've got there's a couple of different cases that held it very clear. I think we got the cart for the horse here with all. Okay, I'll send you the cases. Okay, thank you. Another statutory fix I could think of would be Greg mentioned that's interest rate. That's only on hard economic damages. I've never really thought that that was much leverage on our side of the table so that means there's interest that runs on medical bills and lost wages but for pain and suffering loss of enjoyment of life which are the larger claims there's no pre-judgment interest on those. And when I practice in Massachusetts when I first started there, there is a statute that has 12% on all damages, and that does have some incentive to push a case forward and Greg was mentioning that the courts are not having to deal with the interest for no fault of their own. There's nothing preventing the defense from settling the case for fair value now, or right away, or at any time during the case. So, it's not quite quite that simple but we're open minded to changes and ways to have jury trials. I would like to consider that discussion and there was some mention about the COVID relief money obviously there's going to be a need for resources if we have challenges with technology for those in the Northeast Kingdom or elsewhere. It sounds like money is going to be a way to have to deal with some of that. I think the problem that I want everyone to think of as an emergency problem that is going to be removed with the vaccine that we're just dealing with a backlog for a couple months and then we're going to be okay. I think of this as a problem that has legs for years and that our fixes should be ones that we consider to be ones that are going to be permanent and help the system go forward. Thanks. Next, Pat Gable, or are there any other questions for Chris? Pat or Judge Greerson, whoever wants to go first. I'll start. Judge Greerson, I spoke and then I'll turn it over to him. This is obviously, good morning everybody. It's a very, very important discussion. And we've spoken about a couple of issues in the committee this morning. Senator Sears, you opened with a very important question, which is what is it that the legislature can do to provide relief, which I will make a recommendation on that in a minute. So there were comments about well-being of lawyers, and the Supreme Court, which has as part of its constitutional responsibility, the regulation of lawyers is deeply concerned about the well-being of lawyers, not only for themselves and to make sure that the people who appear in court are well and healthy and able to represent their clients, but also on behalf of clients. And so that's another issue that the court is paying attention to. And then ultimately, some of these issues which really do cross constitutional boundaries. And so in answer to the question what the legislature can do, the best, most important, most direct, most constitutional thing the legislature could do would be to actually appropriate funds to the judiciary for additional permanent positions in the judiciary that would address the underresourcing that we've experienced for many years. As some of your committee members know particularly those who might sit on government operations, the judiciary is very nimble and has ingenuity, and we've found different ways to deal with the issues of insufficient human resources to deal with our needs. But in the wake of the pandemic, and not just during the pandemic, but as attorney Maley said, for the long aftermath of the pandemic, it's human resources. That's who we are. We don't own buildings. We have people and they know how to either hear cases or support the people who hear cases. And so of all the constitutional responsibilities that have been talked about today in the in the committee meeting. That is so clearly a legislative competence and a legislative power, which is the power of appropriation. And I, you know, in another format or maybe in another committee that or at another time I can go into that in more detail but that is by far the the clearest purest thing the legislature could do on a second issue and that is on. What is the role of the core. What is the role of the legislature. It would be helpful just very briefly for me to identify what's happened since March 13, when the Supreme Court declared a judicial emergency as a result of the pandemic. And as a result of that, the Supreme Court, and I, and Judge Grishson have met some in the beginning multiple times a week. It was daily for many months. And now we're meeting at least once or twice a week. And again, on all the issues that you've been talking about this morning. And that includes the balance of interests between the need to provide public health and safety precautions to those who by no choice have to come and use our systems, and at the same time, to make sure that the constitutional rights of Vermonters continue to be served. The court has never been fully closed closed throughout the pandemic. And we continue to use the coven 19 funds to provide technological support. And so, for example, although attorney Maley was saying there have been no trials. That's not true. There have been no jury trials. There have been, we've continued to hold hearings in cases using technology. And it's the, the combination of the technology and many people in the judiciary, working 24 seven, and many more non permanent positions in the judiciary, partly through limited service positions provided by coven 19 funds, partly through the use of temporary employees. And with great gratitude, the many retired employees who've come back to work as temporary employees in the judiciary, both judges, and managers and staff, in order to help us make it through. And so, I think it's important to realize that while the legislature has a broad concern and in your case in your committee for the criminal system, the Supreme Court and Judge Gerson and I and the teams that with whom we work focus 100% of our time on the issues discussed today. And that that has a meaning under our Constitution, because with three equal branches of government. The Supreme Court sits and has the same position in the judicial branch as the governor has in the executive branch. And as the speaker and pro tem have in the legislature. And so the administration of the Supreme Court, including this balancing of interest is is clearly within the constitutional responsibility and duty of the court. We work, as you know, in collaboration with the other branches and the best way we work together is when we are cooperating together and doing problem solving together. We welcome the opportunity with this committee to do that kind of problem solving. I think in a minute when Judge Greerson starts to speak you'll hear that we're already under consideration in the judiciary. I know this committee knows but for those Vermonters who might be watching today, when the Supreme Court issued an order declaring the judicial emergency back in March, we continued and the Supreme Court continued to amend that order as public health evidence presented itself. Because we had some experience in the judiciary, working within the confines of the threats of the pandemic. And as a result of that the Supreme Court has found ways to amend that order, and to adopt other rules that allow as much opening I think Judge Greerson will speak in a minute about the trial that we had scheduled in Wyndham that will that was postponed as the statistics rose, but will surely be scheduled again. And so the combination of first looking at criminal juries and the constitutional rights that are there is one consideration. We have had discussions and they'll be a meeting later today of the, the committee which is not just of the judiciary but of counsel and others, looking at the potential restart of civil jury trials as well. And so one thing I would ask the committee is to recognize that the discussions we're having this morning are taking place on a daily basis in the judiciary. So I'll conclude because I'd like Judge Greerson to have enough time to talk about the nuts and bolts of what we've been doing together, but we share all the concerns of the committee. And I speak on behalf of the Supreme Court to say that they are on a daily basis constantly reviewing looking at all the ways we can open access to justice and still protect the health of Vermonters. Thank you. Judge Greerson. I have a question for Pat Gable. Judge Greerson. Thank you Senator Sears and thank the committee for inviting us to appear and speak on this issue which obviously is interest not only to this committee but to the other witnesses and the people of the folks in Vermont who rely on the courts to remedy the issues that are presented to us. I would just for the record Brian Greerson chief superior judge just asked the committee to recall my testimony last week, when the question before the committee was criminal jury trials, why haven't there been any. And just remind Senator the committee but Senator Sears mentioned it in the Wyndham courthouse, we were talking about using literally three full size courtrooms to conduct, it could have been one a one day trial. That's just the, I think the best example of the task that is before us to try to conduct trials jury trials whether it's criminal or civil the same issues that have impacted and limited our ability to conduct criminal jury trials, apply to civil trials. And the real, the overarching issue that we all know is the ebb and flow of this pandemic. I think it's fair to say that when this started almost a year ago, people were thinking okay, we'll be in this for a few weeks, maybe a couple months. And then by fall we'll be back in business and that obviously not been the case. Courthouse, we thought was our best opportunity to have a trial. The, the, if you go back to AO 49. You will see that the Supreme Court gave a priority to criminal cases and juvenile cases criminal cases because of that detained population. And so our focus up until now has been on trying to restart criminal jury trials. The idea behind Wyndham was doing part we thought that was our best opportunity to do a trial. But it was really, we needed to have one trial to understand what it means to conduct a trial whether it's criminal or civil in this pandemic world. Senator Bruce talked about the impact of vaccines. And what I'm hearing what I'm reading about the impact of vaccines. It should not be viewed as a panacea to the problems that were, were here talking about, because as he mentioned in my understanding is the same as that that vaccine will protect me. But it won't protect. There's not enough data to determine whether, even if I have the vaccine and I'm immune that I cannot transmit the virus to the person next to me. So what I'm hearing is that even with the vaccine until there's a large, large, large number in the population having this vaccine, that we're going to continue to have to maintain masking and social distancing for some period of time, even if, even if we have the vaccine. What that means is that this is not going to be a short term solution. It's something that's going to continue. So even with the vaccine we have to look at, what do we have for resources, how can we use those. I said a minute ago that the issues that relate to the, to the civil trials are the same issues. A lot of the same issues that relate to conducting a criminal jury trial, but there are some differences and that's obviously why this committee is here today so I just want to highlight those, those differences. One of the other witnesses. We were indicated that we have been conducting valuations for airflow air circulation within the courthouses because that is key to being able to bring in members of the public for these proceedings in a safe, safe manner. There are differences. And I think I mentioned it last week and I'll just remind the committee. If we're talking about the state courthouses, the Bennington courthouse, the White River courthouse, Brattleboro are all state owned buildings BGS has control over the facilities, and they're the ones that we're relying on to provide us the information we need in order to assess the, the appropriateness of those courthouses for conducting trials. For the most part, except in single jurisdictions like Orange or LaMoyle Addison, for instance, most of the civil trials are conducted in the county courthouses. They present different issues. Number one, we've retained the services of an engineering firm to conduct the studies there and we have received studies on those county courthouses that have either a full HVAC system or at least a semblance of an HVAC system, a air circulation system. With those reports, for instance, I know we have them from Orange, Windsor County Courthouse, Chittenden and perhaps one or two others. But the common thread in all of those evaluations at this point is that they are saying that we can only conduct trials with six to eight people, meaning a six person jury with two alternates. That obviously limits the ability to conduct trials, as Chris has indicated as well as other witnesses. So, even if those courthouses are deemed appropriate to conduct trials. Right now, unless I get clarification on any of these, we're looking at limiting civil cases to six person juries. From the judiciary's perspective, we're not in the business of choosing between plaintiffs and defense, one side or the other. But I think it's clear that at this point, if we're going to be able to conduct civil trials in the county courthouses, we need a remedy to the fact that right now there are 12 person juries. And there's only one way of getting that or two ways, either by agreement of the parties to submit to a six person jury, or is there some action legislative or through the Supreme Court that can try to address that that issue. And I'll certainly look forward to the research that Eric has done. We'll be doing to look at that issue from a statutory perspective. So that's this, that's one of the big stumbling blocks right now with with the inability to conduct civil juries. I agree with Chris and with Senator Benning. The threat, if you will, of jury trials, whether it's in a criminal context or civil context is what drives resolutions we've seen that just in the Wyndham Court when we picked 10 or 12 cases that we thought might be appropriate for criminal and some of those cases settled just because we started talking about jury trials. We're hoping just to bring the committee up to date. We're still looking at late February more likely into March to resume in Wyndham. And we're looking at other courts hopefully coming online after that. But with some of the same limitations, each courthouse and unit has to present a plan. To my office and Terry Scott's court of trial court operations and Pat, of how they're going to bring a jury and how they're going to circulate throughout the day within the courthouse. I mean that's clearly what the issue is from a civil standpoint. I will tell this committee that later this afternoon, the Supreme Court jury restart committee that formulated the plan as it related to the criminal case is reconvening to discuss this issue of how do we get civil jury trials started again. A lot of the work that was done in relation to criminal jury trials certainly will apply to starting up civil jury trials. But there are some other issues that need to be addressed and and I hope that one of the recommendations that I will bring to that committee is the possibility of a rule through the court for a six person jury. But that that's what it's that's what I think is going to take to move civil trials. And that's, that's the problem we're all all confronting. I will say this. Someone mentioned remote trials and remote what year. We've already put together a committee of judges trial judges to look at this issue of, we began with the issue of remote what year. Just by way of example, we also mentioned and Senator Benning mentioned the limitations on cell service internet service in places in Vermont. One of the reasons for instance in the Wyndham trial as we were moving forward. Pretty early on, we dismissed the idea of a remote what year remote jury selection, because there are pockets in Wyndham County that don't have cell service. Having said that, this group of trial judges that that I put together will continue to look at that issue. And I think even in approaching that we have to recognize number one we can exclude jurors because they don't have adequate cell service or internet service. So even if we're looking at remote what year. We have to look at it as some people may be able to engage in that means but we have to leave open the option for people to still come to the courthouse for that purpose so I view it as as a hybrid. And then I think remote what year is important is, as we're looking at what we can do to remedy this. I think we need to look at solutions that will outlive outlast the pandemic circumstances. If there's any silver lining to this pandemic from the judiciary perspective, it is the increased ability to conduct hearings remotely. We've all those, we've been forced into doing it at this point, but there are many aspects of remote hearings that I expect will continue once the pandemic lifts. In order to, to, for us to learn more about what it really means to conduct a trial remotely or virtually. We've heard of a number of trials taking place out in the state of Washington that were exclusively zoom trials, virtual trials. So, we invited a couple of judges from Seattle era to come in a meeting, obviously zoom meeting, but we had one just this week with a trial judges to understand what they did, and how they did it they have shared a lot of the materials that they have been able to do that. So, even though it would appear on the surface that we have not been able to move ahead and that's true to some extent, we are looking at ways that we, we can move ahead. And the only realistic it is at this point to say we could conduct a trial exclusively remotely, but I believe there are aspects of it, and principally the four year interest me because that's the largest number of people that are involved in the jury trial process at the beginning. And if we can use a means of remote means to reduce the number of people coming in to a courtroom and we get down to whether it's six or 12 in a criminal case, that has been a substantial would be a substantial improvement so remote for dear appeals to me because I think it's something we can continue to use and that's exactly what the judges from Washington. We're telling us earlier this week that their experience has been, even when this is over. They would want to continue that they've seen it. So there are parts of this is difficult as it is that we continue to explore those options. And, and we're going to hopefully put together a pilot if you will have remote for idea. At least that's that's the discussion that is going on now within within the trial trial bench to see is that realistic. That's all that's all I've got at this point. Judge, I appreciate both you and you and Pat, just as well as Chris. Senator Baruth. Thank you judge. I'm, I'm wondering to go back to what Mr Maley was saying. He was saying that the plaintiff bar and the, and the defense bar would not by themselves be able to work this out. We threw out two possibilities one a statutory fix and the other an order registered by the Vermont Supreme Court. What, what would your thoughts just specifically be on the efficacy of any statutory fix that we might do as opposed to, is it your sense that it should be left to the courts to work out. I guess I'd like to, you know, see the research do the research on the issue of the statutory framework if you I think Chris and others commented that if you passed a statute to affect this, and made it effective on passage as you sometimes choose to do. It may be challenged through the court process. And it may very well be that if the Supreme Court decides to enact a rule and maybe an emergency rule to apply only during a, you know, a limited time period that that same challenge would come into play. So I don't know whether one in that sense one is preferable over the other. And that's what I hope to explore with it with the courts restart committee is the possibility of doing that. But would it, would it be theoretically faster in terms of the elapsed time that we would have to endure the challenge. If the Vermont Supreme Court makes an emergency order that the challenge for that am I right would be shorter in duration, possibly than a statutory challenge. Yes. Okay. I mean, but the very nature of an emergency rule is, is, is that and yeah, how long it lasts is always an issue. Because I find myself when I when I try to think about us stepping into this, it seems as though what we might inadvertently do is lengthen the amount of time that nothing happens. So, that's, that's one worst case scenario. Whatever whether it's through legislature or even if the Supreme Court was so inclined and obviously I don't, I do not speak for them. I would expect it would be challenged. You know, I, I will tell the committee that there's at least two different groups that I meet with periodically from other other New England states to discuss this same issue and not that it, not that that's the benchmark but all the New England states are struggling struggling with this issue meeting this week Rhode Island hasn't had any trials. I believe I'm not sure about Connecticut, Massachusetts may have had a few six person trials main is on hold the rise in the numbers in New England since beginning in November have continued and that is, for the most part brought any trials that we're going on to a halt in January and people are looking at, is it safe to start up again. I'm not going to be wary. It's more likely March I think is what people are looking at and that's why I was referring earlier to hoping to restart Wyndham. The only other thing that occurred to me as I was listening Senator Sears mentioned the idea of starting up. You know why not take the berry auditorium which I'm intimately familiar with. It's a place to do trials. So, again I go back to the idea of in a year where resources are probably going to be limited for whatever the legislature wants to do separate and apart from the problem that we're before you with today. If you stand up the berry auditorium for trials, then you've got to ask yourself how many other places can we do that within the state. And if we stood up the berry auditorium, who's going to get trials there. Are they going to be criminal trials, civil trials, how do we weigh a case out of Wyndham County or Bennington County or Rutland County. Are they the ones that gets selected to come to bury for that trial but more importantly, I'm hopefully looking forward to the vaccines certainly making a difference in what we feel is a safe arena to bring people that may take longer than than some of us think but outfitting a building like the berry auditorium for trials at best is temporary and the question is, is it does that kind of investment at this point in time. And it's as opposed to hopefully opening up these courthouses and putting in the improvements airflow circulation to get the buildings that are at least designed already for courthouses even if we have to use three court months. We know within those buildings where the jurors have to go and what the jurors need. So, we're not opposed to that idea, Senator Sears it's just, it's, it's, it's a completely different investment of resources that we would have to have to think about resources are always an issue that brought it up and don't disagree with her. I'm sitting on the appropriations committee. And seeing how different interests vary and constantly trying to figure out what is the priority. You're giving the leg, I think you give the legislature a little too much credit for having access to the resources because, frankly, the administration is the one with the access when they come back with a, with a 0% increase in the judiciary. Plus a 0% increase and try to do a 4 to 8% increase in the Senate. It hardly makes a dent and I am aware of that, but our problem is we're competing and different interests. So, we may never be able to get where you want to get, but I within reason. I'm happy to look at any to improve both post pandemic and pandemic access to justice of nonters. So, whether it be criminal or civil. I asked the question and can't get the order to do an audit of, you know, what, what happened to the transport deputies when we stopped doing transports. That's, I mean, that was just a minor resource issue to me. What happens, you know, so it's an, I'll comment this way. That's just a, that's just one, we know, we know you're doing remotely. But let me just take a minute to tell you, one of the projects we're working on is with that very issue, because of the location of our facilities are somewhat isolated from where the people were bringing them. And some of you may know that the Marble Valley has been closed, at least for the detainee population for anybody. Exactly. So Springfield is now the hub. And so do see is involved in transportation but more recently to address the issue of transporting people from Springfield. We have engaged the, the sheriff in Wyndham County to provide transport from the facility back to the Brattleboro courthouse so it's almost the reverse of what they were doing, and we're trying we're just barely getting that project off the ground and if it's successful, then we may reach out to other sheriffs to see if that would work in other areas because of the location of the facilities. So I'm, it's a question and, and, and I just wanted the committee to be aware that that's something we're working on to take advantage of that resource. And it might be helpful to clarify that the transport deputies are not part of the judiciary budget. Yeah. Right. At this time. That's right. Senator Benning. Judge, I agree with you. There's no panacea here. I have a question first and then a comment. Is there a general rule on jury draw day. How many cases are placed on the calendar. What is there a maximum of some kind that judges generally understand. You know what I found over my time on the bench and more so, since I've been in this position and traveling around to different counties. It's almost a cultural, it varies. For whatever reason, Franklin County by way of example on their jury draw day criminal draws, they would routinely have over 100 cases on that list. In other counties, it's a more reasonable list you might come in with 10 or 15 criminal cases on a jury list. So it varies and it's it's that that's all I can tell you the civil trials are usually a much smaller number but it wouldn't be uncommon to, to have six to 10 civil cases on a list. Whether you want to call it jury draw or the final retrial but it varies from county to county and docket. So there's no no general rule from your office it says X number is no max. So that brings up the overall question for me. It's useless to get more personnel into a system that cannot function. While those personnel can't be in buildings that don't have proper HVAC, unless and until those people are actually immune. And this avalanche that's coming. If we are going to not have available some magical paintbrush it takes care of it all at the same time has got to start being chipped away before it all comes at us at one time. And so I'm coming back to the idea that the more people we can get vaccinated. We have to start piecemeal at chipping away this avalanche. So, getting court personnel. Immunized needs to be in my eyes at the top of the priority list for this branch of government to start getting back to functioning normally. If there is a first wave that has people 65 and older. The idea of having those people brought into a place where the court personnel are already vaccinated. That's another step in the right direction. Having the obstacle of buildings that are not HVAC proper is then eliminated. That no longer becomes a hurdle to moving something and decreasing the size of the avalanche down the road. And as more people come into that wave, the second wave in other words, you're increasing the size of a potential jury pool. And I understand there would be requirements to wave that have to be addressed the issue of is this a jury of my peers. But you have to start this conversation somewhere. If you have clients that are coming into the building that have not been immunized. While I agree that's a problem that we have to deal with it is a much easier thing to do to isolate them in the building. Much the way they are currently today if I walked into Caledonia's courthouse there is now plastic that isolates me when I'm sitting at the defense council table. But that is not as threatening to the court system functioning as not doing anything at all and waiting for this avalanche to hit us. I guess my comment is simply to say, we all have to be united in convincing the administration. In getting this system to move in some fashion again that the court system has to be on the top of the priority list in getting vaccines. I'm going to leave it at that. Just looking for some way to get this avalanche. I'm not saying whether we like it or not but the size of it can be decreased if we use piecemeal operations to combat it. Joe. Yes, sir. Another thing occurs to me about this. We talked about on one end. There might be dissatisfaction or a challenge because it wasn't a jury of one's peers. On the other end, if I'm 75 and over and I get vaccinated, and then I find out that I've essentially agreed to be in a very small pool for jury draw, as opposed to what I'm normally in as a citizen. You might have problems there too because older Vermonters would say, even though I'm vaccinated, I don't want to go into a congregate setting because I'm 75. So I want to be vaccinated and go back to my house and not encounter a large group of people. Yeah, I think now that I think about it would greatly increase any 70 year old Vermonters chances of being forced by law into a voir dire situation. Phillip, I made the mistake of saying 75. It's actually 65 and the first way. But let me let me say when you get a notice for jury draw as a prospective juror, you are able to make an argument. If you feel you really can't participate in the process for whatever reason. And the judge gets to make a decision about whether your reason is valid or not. There are all kinds of potential hurdles that may make an argument that somebody puts out and they come up and be valid and the judge says, All right, I'm going to exclude you. But you still have a pool out there that we can start to use to provide leverage against this backlog of cases. Both civil and criminal are the same thing to get this backlog taken care of you've got to have leverage from someplace. I understand that but but in essence, I think you could unintentionally disincentivize older Vermonters who hear that if they get the vaccine. They're now going to be part of a very small pool for jury trials. I think there's problems with any, any solution you've brought forward a potential solution. I think it should be discussed absolutely. And I think I heard Judge Greerson say that all of these ideas will go in the hopper. But I'm just saying there are unintentional consequences to designating a small slice of Vermonters as the only people who will be considered for jury trials. And I don't disagree that there will be hurdles. I'm primarily saying we have to get the court personnel on the top of the priority list, and that is a place to start the conversation. And as those waves in succession, you increase the number of people available. That will eventually bring us to where we want to be but just getting a pool of any kind together will provide some leverage to begin settling cases. And that's the whole idea is to start someplace that doesn't cost us any money by the way the legislature doesn't have a cost associated with that. This is when we get the vaccines they're available. We have to decide who it is it's getting them first. I think suggesting our first attempt should be let's convince the administration that the court personnel and anybody associated with the court system on a regular basis should be at the top of the priority list, and we get that system beginning to move again. Fair enough. Eric. I'm not sure you wanted to wait on this or did you want to hear for a minute on a moment on the 12 person jury issue. Yes. I'll just read the language from from one of the cases and I think is Mr. Maley indicated earlier and he was indicating the year 1869 that could have been a random excellent coincidence, or could have been he's perfectly aware of this particular case. I'll just read the language because it's so on point. And it's, it's the language in the Constitution that the court is referring to is in chapter one article 12, where the Constitution says the parties have a right to trial by jury. And if you look at the, this case, the language says that. This is the second I had it here. The word jury has used in the Constitution means a common law jury of 12 men, obviously gender neutral today but at the time he's the word men. The Constitution has not required the legislature to provide for trials of issues or causes by jury, but the Constitution does require that the legislature shall either provide for a jury of 12 men for the trial of all causes before all courts which have jurisdiction of any matter or cause in which the issue is proper for the cognizance of a jury, or allow the cause to be carried by appeal to a court in which that mode of trial is provided for. So it's quite clear, but it's also quite old. So that's an 1869 case and again in 1917. In a different case the court said the jury referred to in these provisions is the common law jury of 12. It's clear, but it's also two points, leap to mind I think one, because it's there's such older cases. It's perfectly legitimate for the legislature to try and pass the statute and go with a different number and just, you know, allow the court to reconsider that position because it's been a long time that's not unusual. There's also one might say particularly since the court is referring particularly to legislative authority there and it kind of goes back to Pat Gable's comments earlier. You know, it might be a situation where given the emergency authority that the court has issued administrative order 47 under. You can sort of see the court saying pursuant to that order and pursuant to its own inherent emergency authority. In certain circumstances of COVID. Yes, we recognize that that those decisions are out there 100 years ago but in light of this emergency situation by rule they might provide for a jury of fewer than 12 people at least during the pendency of the emergency that sort of seems also like a reasonable position that could be taken. And I had I thought it might be helpful for the committee to hear that now since we were talking about the issue. Thank you. Well, in the interest of moving along. What if we did. Would it amend. I'm sorry Terry wanted to make a comment. Oh, no, and I apologize. I was thinking everybody was done and I just wanted to make a brief comment at the end. I had invited Greg limer as chair of the practice and procedure committee which is the civil docket committee, assuming that you all would prefer hearing from a practitioner. But I did want to just indicate on behalf of the bar. I can state the bar would definitely give its full support to whatever measures are implemented to move things along whether it's senator Bennings encouragement that court personnel be moved to the top of the vaccination list, the remote video, the remote for tears whatever is decided upon the bar is you have the bars full support. The ministry has been very good about involving the bar in the AO 49 developments, we went from weekly to monthly calls with with Pat and judge Greerson and the chief and we have bar representatives on the jury restore committee so we want to support whatever will move things along. One thing that hadn't been mentioned in particular with regard to the civil docket that I just wanted to briefly mention with the moratorium on the landlord tenant and for close cases for all of these months. When that moratorium ends that's going to I think open up a floodgate. And in order to have civil jury trials while the civil division judge is dealing with the this incredible backlog of the civil docket. So all they might be retired judges for civil jury trials separately which does involve the costs, which leads to Pat's point the bar also would fully support whatever funding requests for made to again move the dockets along so that all of these from honors who are limbo with their civil cases will have a chance for things to start progressing. So there would be that support as well. In terms of the six person jury versus 12 person. As Chris and Greg have mentioned there are competing interests, but the bar would definitely support a decision that's made so that people can know when they talk with their clients here's the timeline here's what the situation is. There's another area where there's been a tremendous amount of limbo in the civil docket and and remoders are suffering as a result so those are just brief points I wanted to make where the bar can offer a consensus and support and again whatever we can do to help in this effort. We're at your service. I appreciate that. So, media. You know, maybe it's time for a little discussion. I would have no objection to amending a judicial rule or a piece of legislation. It would be temporary in nature during the pandemic that would establish a six person jury and civil trials, which gives us a place to begin discussions and also have no objection to. And I hate to put you through an effort judge and that of. But I have no objection to seeing what you think the resources need to be in order to accomplish that. Senator White. So, I wouldn't have any objection to that either but I think that given the conversation that Philip that Senator Bruce brought up about the speediness of it, if we did it by legislation, it is going to be. August before there's any. I mean, we have to pass something and the house has to pass something that it has to go to the government. It's going to be a long time it seems to me that just a letter from the Supreme Court and, and I don't know if that has to be by rule or if it can just be part of an executive, a judicial executive order, given the, the emergency legislation, it seems to me that that is a speedier that that would get it going much faster than legislation. Well, there is a thing called the budget. What. There's a thing called the budget adjustment act. Oh no no I meant in terms of allowing the six person I didn't, I wasn't referring to the resources I was referring to the fact that to allow a six person jury trial. You can put the resources into the budget and put in language that the court show on the gate rules. Yeah. So, probably you've all experienced this as well all the other senators, people will contact me and want me to unilaterally change something about how our pandemic response is going and I always have to explain to them that the administrative branch the governor has most of the emergency power. And in this case, it seems to me if the if the governor and the Supreme Court together issued emergency orders that were interlocking, you would probably forestall a lot of the opposition or the challenges. But if we go at it unilaterally as the legislature, you know, controlled both houses by Democrats, I think we open ourselves up for a much more likely set of long running challenges. So, I guess my, my own thinking about it again would be, as opposed to us trying to cobble something together that falls apart. If the Supreme Court and the governor were convinced of the efficacy of a six person jury, then both of them speaking to that in their capacity with emergency power seems like the way to go. Yeah, because even promulgating rules takes a long time. Well, usually is this. I just add one thing on the Supreme Court order. I, it would be the Vermont Association for justice preference that that happened, as opposed to legislation for all the reasons that were described. And there is some historical perspective here. The Supreme Court had shut down trials before it was before my time but there was a moratorium on trials. There was a budgetary problem and the Supreme Court said we're just not going to have trials. And attorneys from my side of the bar, brought an action, a petition to try to overrule that emergency order to say Supreme Court you can't do this you're shutting down a constitutional right, and the Supreme Court showed that it has power. And it could say, we met what we said, no trials. And the same thing here, if the Supreme Court says we can do this, the only remedy would be a petition. And the same people who just said we can do this to say, wait, there's this case from 1869, Supreme Court can say, we just issued an emergency order we say this is constitutional under the circumstances so there's no question they have power to do this. It's just whether that's what they're going to decide to do or not. And if I might just add, I think the likelihood that the court will be considering this kind of action and act pretty quickly is high. And so I don't know if that makes a difference to the committee but it's within the courts areas of expertise has attorney Maley points out. And I think the court, you know, has a similar view to the discussion today about the urgency of moving these cases. Great. Senator Lincoln. Oh, this afternoon as I understand it Judge Grerson is meeting with the Supreme Court panel. And maybe this discussion we're having here today could certainly maybe spur them forward to do something with regard to the six person juries. The panel senator is the Supreme Court established a jury restart committee back in the spring, and it consists of some members of the Supreme Court. It also has representatives from the Vermont bar association. It has trial judges. It's a mix of people that make recommendations. As a result of the pandemic and the impact of that on court operations so they this committee of the Supreme Court makes recommendations to the Supreme Court so that it's that committee that's meeting this afternoon of which. I don't agree on that committee but so are other members of the bar and as I said, trial judges so just a little and I would almost be sure that some members of that committee are listening to this, this session. So, I want to kind of send a betting. I agree that this measure will move us in the right direction, but it's absolutely useless if you don't have a jury pool available on the other side of the conversation. And so I'm hoping that the message that's being delivered from us to the judiciary is the judiciary needs to be behind. I'm contacting the administration and saying, in order for us to achieve this objective, we've got to start raising on the priority list, the personnel who are necessary to achieve what we're trying to accomplish here for vaccination purposes. I'm not an expert on vaccination but I think what I've heard here today is there's a concern that until the large majority of the monitors and visitors are vaccinated you still have the danger of the endemic. So I'm not sure how long this judicial emergency will last. The question is, is there a way for us to encourage the startup of six member jury trials so that the civil backlog can start to get moved forward and what would be the resources needed in order to do that in terms of technology etc. Can they be part of the second, I'm going to call it Cures Act, that the federal government just sent out and we're looking at the resources, or perhaps the third one that the Biden administration has been talking about. For my purposes, at least, I'm happy to look at the resources you need in order to accomplish this. Here's the, you hit on an important issue because the judiciary did get cares act funding, and we have already spent or embargoed the funding that we received. So we would be happy to take a review of the pandemic related needs in terms of doing a startup of jury trials again and provide some information to you. That is kind of a separate issue from, you know, the long, longer term issues regarding criminal permanent positions, but we could work on that and then provide the committee some information on that. And in light of the budget adjustment that will be coming out of the house in the next few weeks, being dealt with by the Senate, it might be a timely place, but there are also the internet resources and stuff that Senator Benning spoke of and others, whatever that might be, Senator White. So I actually support Joe's position here on trying to encourage the administration to, because if you have, and the, the vaccines don't aren't going to eliminate the need for social distancing and masks and all that kind of stuff but we need. If we're going to start up and figure out a way of starting up jury trials, we need to make sure that we protect the court personnel that are working and that have to be there. And it's for their protection that they're vaccinated, not necessarily for the protection of others but I think that that's really important and I know that each of us has heard from constituent groups that are advocating that they are be at the top of the list, but and I understand the reasons that the administration is doing it the way they're doing it, but I do believe that if we are going to have a initial system that works for the benefit of Vermonters and it gives them fair and speedy speedy is, I guess kind of a not a very good term but it's relative but it does seem to me that we need to protect the court personnel that we cannot. And I'm, I'm for one. I'm happy to join Joe in trying to convince the administration to put court personnel at the top of the list. For the for the committee's information I tried to testify about this a couple weeks ago but I didn't have good internet. The chief justice and I did reach out to executive branch leadership. It seems like three or four weeks ago, and we were referred to the Department of Health, and we are waiting to be contacted by the Department of Health. Here's the problem that I see in us getting involved in that. I don't necessarily disagree with Joe. So you have a situation where most people would like to get vaccinated. Those are the way that the state rolled it out plans to roll it out. I'm in New York state, they did a thing for teachers that they forgot the childcare personnel. So they're all upset why are teachers more important than us. And I think it's probably problems on trying to get one group ahead of another group. So what about anybody who's a potential juror. Shouldn't they all just, I just see that, I think, I'm not sure we solve this problem until there's your immunity until. And frankly, it's the federal government. Hopefully is is going to get more vaccine to more Americans as soon as possible. That's the way out of this, my opinion. I just think there's problems if we try to do that what about the jail guards. What about the prisoners, which is one of the highest groups to in nationwide. So I, you know, it's various groups I just If I could only chip in dick. If we're waiting for herd immunity. Every other suggestion that's been presented here is just that it's a suggestion that's not going to decrease the avalanche that we're eventually going to get hit with. And the jury pool right now could be assembled with people 65 and older once that cohort is vaccinated. So you've now begun to crack that really tall iceberg. And to me, it makes sense that the judicial staff, necessary to assemble that cohort is also protected. It's a finite group of people. And that system in order to begin has to have comfort that the people who are in these buildings that we all know are not properly HVAC. Have to have themselves the protections that are necessary to begin to chip away at this. For a panacea like herd immunity, I agree with you that would solve the entire problem. But if we're waiting for that. We are just increasing this problem in proportions, we all don't have any ability to understand. My concern is how do you get somebody to the top of the list. I would just, I would like to weigh in on that. I mean, teachers who are in the classroom every day exposed to all kinds of kids from all kinds of families. I mean, they've been asking all along. And even though they are younger and therefore not such a risk of dying, which is what the governor says is the prime thing is to keep people from dying. This still seems like everybody is desperate to get schools fully opened so that children can be in school so people can go to work, etc. And I think I don't I don't see moving this group and nobody saying teachers are in any kind of line either. Alice, I would only push back to that statement by saying the governor right now is making decisions on who's on the priority list based on death rates. And I understand that logic. But this is a whole branch of government that has coming to a rapid standstill. And when that happens it's got to be taken into account. It's not death rates that we're looking at it's a whole branch of government that's not moving. And to me that's a whole nother part of the conversation that has yet to be had, and it will require all the people on this screen to be united in the belief that it's important enough for that branch of government to move forward. If you're involved in it get higher on that priority list. My wife is a teacher. I understand she has that need, but the chances of her running into a death situation are much lower than having a jury pool come in with all kinds of people from all groups. If you don't get those people protected first. That's going to be an element that's a problem by itself, but the overall concern here is one branch of government is literally coming to a standstill and I appreciate the fact that there are some things that are moving. It doesn't imply that we're dead in the water, but this avalanche is going to be incredibly problematic. Yeah, I don't want to committee to think that I was saying that we have to wait until we get herd immunity in order to move ahead with trials. Back in November December we were prepared to go ahead with the trial and in Wyndham with or without vaccines the vaccines weren't out there, as long as we maintain the proper social distancing and masking. And that's the still the basis on which we're going forward what I was saying was that it's those elements, the masking and social distancing will continue for some period of time. And that's that's the way we plan on forward. So I don't have an easy solution this morning, but I appreciate Eric's research on the laws regarding the smaller. I agree with the majority of the committee who said that we should encourage the Supreme Court to consider smaller juries and 12 for civil cases. And that we should consider alternative venues. I don't know if that was brought up. And it's a huge gymnasium that Southern Vermont College that's now owned by the Southern Vermont hospital could be a resource in my community. I think pretty good ventilation. So there would be, you know, maybe one of the things we need to do is consider alternative venues in Bennington there are three courtrooms but I don't know how the structure would work for that I guess Wyndham is a little better. I also have to be willing to say that some cases from Bennington County need to be heard in Wyndham County some cases from other counties need to be here in other counties with a signaling that we're doing away with the Bennington County court system. And maybe we can't we need all the courtrooms we can get. But maybe we can't use at this point in time I'm thinking of the Bennington Courthouse for civil trials that may not be an ideal situation that would be able to be used. And who knows what the new normal is going to be. That's I think there's a general agreement that we need to get back to at least moving the backlog. And so it takes a consensus of the committee and Eric can wrap something as a consensus of this committee to send over to the Supreme Court and happy to do that. But it sounds like you're already considering these options. Yes, Senator the Supreme Court and the committees that advise the court are actively considering the issues we discussed today. I like Joe's idea of having the governor also be part of that executive order I don't know if that makes a difference or not but it certainly seems like it would have more weight or a lot of weight with the public anyway. To summarize where we're at on the issue of the civil trials and criminal trials I think we're Eric. Hopefully they folks will take back and try to ask the Supreme Court to look at the issue of whether or not there should be jury trials and six that it would be better for them to promulgate that for us to try to do it in legislation that's pretty much the summary of the committee is their desire to send a note on behalf of the committee to the executive branch as well. Our concern about the start up of civil and criminal trials and the backlogs that we're looking at would that be something that you think might help? I don't think it can hurt. Can you do something like that Eric? We just don't want to conflate civil trials and criminal trials with the six member jury panel. No, no, obviously no. You're right. But that at least it's up to somehow look at alternatives and do that. That is, there's a problem that needs to be addressed. The executive judicial branch is perhaps suggesting to the executive branch that they help the judicial branch resources needed to accomplish. Yeah, that what you're asking me centers here is I could certainly draft up a letter from the committee that, you know, Yes, suggested that to the court and to the executive branch that the resources be available to the judiciary move this forward. Who would be any thoughts on who would be the executive branch recipient? I would think of Suzanne Young, the secretary of administration. Right. That's a good idea. That's a good idea. I think that's going to be a good idea. The other judges and Johnson, the governor's. Sounds good. Are there others that you can think of it, the executive? No, I think. Suzanne Young and the governor. Mark LeVie. Well, yeah, the department of health would certainly have a role there. Making sure that whatever we do is. In the. So many one, Pat Gable, Judge Greerson, Terry or Chris Maley are still on the line. I don't know how. Senator, I just appreciate, and the judiciary appreciates the cooperation of the committee in addressing these really challenging issues. So we look forward to working with you on that. Thank you. I don't have anything, but thank the committee and Senator Sears for your Terry, if there's any thoughts from the bar association on how to move this forward to certainly they could weigh in with the court. Great. And the judiciary has been great about involving the bar in the jury restart committee, A o 49 discussions. And we we also so much appreciate your committee's work on this. All right, with that, we'll move on to something else.