 Evan Menon has his hand up here from him and then Senator White had a question. Thank you very much. And again, just for the record, it's Evan Menon from the department of state's attorneys. I just wanted to take a minute very briefly and respond to Matt Valerio's testimony because it concerned me that maybe some folks were misconstruing my testimony and thinking that the department was advocating for some type of change to the self-defense standard as it existed before Act 27, which is not true. As I stated, we support S-184 even in its current form. It was not the intent to try and, our intent to try and change the self-defense standard. We think S-184 helps to clarify that Act 27 was not supposed to change that standard as reflected in the letter that Senator Sears mentioned. And as I mentioned, if the committee wants to recommend that the archaic list of relationships in subsection one be replaced with the just and necessary defense of a person's own life or the life of another person, the department would support that as well. Thank you. All right. Senator White. So before they suggested and came up about moving that, my suggestion was going to be that we should just add the language about the common law that you and Judge Azoni, I believe it was that talked about and pass it. But I don't have strong feelings about removing that language if it doesn't do anything harmful. No, I think we, thank you. I think, Eric, you could think what I'm hearing from all, everyone is that it would be desirable to first consider striking whether or not we strike the crimes as a question for the committee, but adding a section that makes clear we're not impacting common law. Yep. That makes sense. I've heard that as well from the committee and the witnesses. And I see the language and the aggravated assault statute I think will fit in perfectly. So just, you'd say something like the section channel to be construed to limit for a fringe upon defenses granted common law. That seems to be exactly the concept the committee is looking for. And I think since one has been attempt to make clear, I don't, and it's been in law forever. I'm not sure I want to change that from the way it is in the bill. It's to where, whether we want to, I believe, whether we could put in a period right after in the forceful of violent suppression of a crime instead of listing all those different crimes. So if it had to be, so as I understand it, if you did that period there, you're saying it, the crime needs to be forceful and it needs to be violent. And that's rather than describing what crimes they might be. Is that what I heard from the witnesses? That was what I heard from the witnesses. So it would read if the person reasonably believed that he, that the person or any other person was an imminent pearl, and that it was necessary to repel that pearl, deadly force, in the forceful of violent suppression of a person. Stop right there in the violent suppression of a crime. I'd also like to push for a, if I could make a plug for the archaic list in subsection one. I look at that list as back in the days when frankly a man had control over his family. And I would just push for the elimination of that archaic list. Do any of the witnesses have a problem with that or any of the committee members? I'd like to take the list. If I may, Evan Meenan from the Department of State's attorneys, I don't know that I was following that correctly. So perhaps this is more of a question, but if two was changed to in the forceful or violent suppression of a crime, I don't, since the word, because of the word suppression, I'm not sure that's the same thing as saying a crime being committed with force or violence. It's more about force or violence. Right. You're right. Thank you. That's what I intended. Question now is, should we drop the names and the names? Yeah. Well, before we get to that, Senator Sears, I just want to follow up on what Evan was saying, what you were just mentioning about your intent. So now I'm not sure I'm following what you're suggesting for two. Are you saying that you want to rewrite that so that the forceful or violent suppression, it would say necessarily repelled apparel with deadly force in the forceful or violent suppression of a person attempting to commit a violent crime or to commit any crime? Violent crime. Um. You know what? I think we're running a foul of the keep it simple standard. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe it's fine the way it is. Again, I would suggest again. If you refer to common law, then you're covering everything else. That's right. Exactly. So I don't think we need to change too. The question, the only question is you change one. I guess you would just change that to ingest necessary defensive person's own life for the life of another. Yep. I'd be interested to hear from Judge Zone whether he thinks there's any problem doing that. Well, what I'm going to do is ask Eric to redrap the bill, the strike all send it out to everybody that's here and receive comments next. I think we have some time built in next Friday. Peggy, if I'm not mistaken. Next Friday. Hold on, let me just look. We have S-265 from nine to 1045 and then we have Judge Novotny. So it depends on that. 265. Is the criminal threatening? Bill, we're just, we can do it. Oh, I can't hear you. Sorry. Go ahead. We could do it at 1030. 1030, okay. Put on this one at 1030, if Eric's available. Yeah, that's fine with me. Thank you. Okay. So we can, criminal threatening. Well, I only have two witnesses and there may be some others who want to testify in the future. But I just had Jim Condos and PJ Dunham. Anybody else who should be on that list for criminal threatening? Probably, oh, I know who. It would be the state attorney in Washington County and I never announced his last name, right? Rory. Rory, yeah. Rory Tebow. Do you want me to get him to do it? Yeah, we'll just stick to those three witnesses Friday. It's a complex issue, I'm sorry. The Secretary of State asked for Chris Winters as well to be added. That's fine. Yeah, I figured. He's like, you know, I don't think Condos can go anywhere. Okay. So is everybody okay with that? And everybody who's here will, who's here on S184 will get a copy of the redraft from Eric as well as the committee. The redraft can be posted and then we, if people aren't able to be here next Friday and you have any comments on it, you can certainly send it to Eric. Sounds like we're coming to some kind of resolution here. Great, thanks, Senator Steers. I'll send it out and everyone can take a look. Thanks for working on that. Okay, thank you. What's that? Thanks for working on that. My conscience has been bothering me since I left the slip-by last time. Oh, certainly want your conscience cleared, Senator. I don't know if that'll actually clear his whole conscience, but... We'll lay around this. Peace real. By the way, did everybody hear the sad news today? Meatloaf died. What? Meatloaf died at age 75. The singer... Like a bat out of health. I got to look for the kitchen. Frequently used as one of his songs as a... Apple loaf is no better than none at all or something like that. So it's like that when we were doing a bill, doing the appropriations and arguing over how much somebody should get. All right, Judge Zone, you won it. Introduce us to Judge Jerome. And I hope I pronounced his name right, so I should have let you just do it. Let me make sure. I think I saw Judge Jairon come on. There he is. Jairon, yes. So good morning again. Tom Zone, Chief Superior Judge. And this morning, I have the pleasure of introducing one of our newest superior court judges who was sworn in on January 3rd. And that is Justin Jairon. Justin, Judge Jairon, is a graduate of the University of Vermont. He went to Albany Law School where he graduated cum laude and also worked on the law review. After law school, he was a law clerk, went into private practice. And in 2003, he became a deputy state's attorney with the Chittenden County State's Attorney's Office. He stayed in that position until the time of his appointment. And in 2016, he was designated to be the Chief Deputy State's Attorney. There is no question that Judge Jairon is held in high regard by his former colleagues and the members of the bar. And at his swearing in, there was a number of comments made about him. And some of the words that were used were intelligent, respectful, and thoughtful. It was also commented that he was calm and unflappable. And I think it was state's attorney, Sarah George, who commented that no matter how people were getting upset, he just had this very nice calm demeanor. And I thought to myself at the time, well, that's good. He's gonna need that as a judge. And then we also found out something about Judge Jairon that I think put it into even a better context. He has his private pilot's license. And so I thought, well, it's good that a judge is calm and unflappable. And it's really good that someone who is controlling you in an airplane is also calm and unflappable. And I think as we go forward, you will see that the characteristics that were identified as making him an ideal candidate for his appointment will make him an ideal judge as he goes forward in his career. And so I'm proud to present Judge Jairon. Thank you, Judge Sothej. Thank you, Judge. I'm Dick Sears from Bennington County. And I'll let the other members of the committee introduce themselves starting Senator Booth. I'm Phil Baruth representing Chittany County. I'm Alice Nittka representing Windsor County. I'm Jeanette White representing Windham County. Hello again. Good morning, Judge Jairon. Calm and unflappable. Do I understand correctly that you're coming to Caledonia County? You do understand that, Senator Benning. That is a quality that I will very much appreciate. I'm Joe Benning, I'm from Caledonia County and I've been a trial attorney here for 38 years. I think he's suggesting that other judges who've been in Caledonia are not as unflappable. I did not say that, Senator Bennington. Oh, okay, I just wanted to make it clear. You got clarity on that. And tell us a little bit about your interest in becoming a judge and why you chose to apply for the position. Certainly. Thank you Senator Sears. And good morning to everybody and thank you for making this time available for me to meet with you. It's interesting because I've been asked the question before, why did I, what made me interested in being a judge and joined the judiciary? And it's hard to come up with a, there's really no short, easy answer except that when I first became interested in being a lawyer, I was really interested in being a prosecutor early on after some interest in being a police officer. And pretty quickly after becoming a prosecutor, as much as I enjoyed the idea of being in court and trying to achieve justice and upholding the law, as years went by, more and more I became more interested in the process itself and the way the legal system worked. And it became clear to me that what I really, one of the things that became very important to me was that the process and the system was fair and that it was fair to everybody. And as I sat in front of a lot of judges and appeared in front of a lot of judges over the years, I began to think, I could see how they did their job and I appreciated the challenges they had. And over time I just began to think that I would really enjoy that position. I think that I would be well suited to it. I would enjoy being able to be someone that's in a sense protecting the system and making it available and fair to other people, to litigants. So that's sort of a long way of saying it's been an evolution over the years for me. And, but that's really the reason I think that the courts are one of the most important institutions we have as a society and in this country and state. And if I can be someone that can serve in that capacity and I think that I can be and will be, then I, it was important that I made the, put in the application and put myself forward. Thank you. You were a Chittenden County deputy state's attorney for a while. And that County has made certain decisions regarding prosecutions. And as a judge, how do you look at those decisions I'm trying to be? You know, for example, not prosecuting certain crimes. And if you're in Caldonia County where the prosecutor there may prosecute some of those crimes, how's that going to affect your ability to on the bench? Well, certainly my experience in Chittenden is going to probably inform the way I approach cases going forward. But really, in my mind, you know, the legislature has enacted the laws there in place. And if one state's attorney chooses to enforce certain laws, either chooses not to enforce ones or chooses to enforce them in a different way and seek different types of resolutions, however they want to approach the cases, it's going to be my responsibility to look at the laws that are in place. And so a case that might not be brought in Chittenden County, maybe brought in Caledonia County, but that's the province of that state's attorney. And I certainly respect that. And I'll approach that case as I would any other case. In other words, I wouldn't discount it just because it's something that may not have been brought in Chittenden County or may have been prosecuted differently in Chittenden County, for that matter. It raises an issue that this committee had been confronted with many times in that geographical justice where, and we've seen it actually in the courts as well as prosecutors, defense bar, et cetera, of how different crimes are dealt with differently. We've been talking about a bill on the lack of, but a term shoplifting, but in large amounts where the aggregate value is very high and that the people at certain stores are uncomfortable with what's going on, obviously, and concerned about the aggregate value of those. So I think that's one of the things that this committee and the House Committee on Judiciary have been long trying to deal with is this kind of geographic justice where somebody in Chittenden County commits a crime and that crime is either not even prosecuted or diverted and somebody in, I'll use the example of California County is prosecuted, ends up going for the judge. Either there's a plea agreement or ends up in trial. That's really the reason for my question. Other questions for Judge Drew? Are the only on with questions here? I'll just throw in a comment, Judge, that we will welcome you to Caledonia County. Thank you, Senator. I am really looking forward to it. I had a chance to get up to Caledonia County last week or the week before, but most of our orientation has been remote and really enjoyed meeting the staff and getting a chance to see the courthouse and I'm very excited to be up there. Are you going to be co-assigned in Essex County as well? Yes, I'll be covering that as well. That's one of the last best kept secret in the court system. Clerk usually asks you what you like in your coffee when they come in the door. Sounds like a welcome to place. Other questions? I just have a thought in doing judicial retention. One of the issues that regularly comes up is that judges lose a lot of their friendships and contacts that they've had before because they're in such a different position and I don't know if you're prepared for not having your friends or being able to hang out so to speak with people you did before. And I know that's been, judges have mentioned that and if you're thinking about that. Yes, thank you, Senator. I've thought about that. I've applied more than once and so during that process, I've heard the same sort of information from either sitting judges or people who have made the same transition. And so I kind of prepared myself in advance but even as a prosecutor, you do have a set of friends and social contacts that are somewhat personal and unrelated to those you have as a lawyer. At the same time, I do have friends who have become judges and we were able to still maintain those friendships because they would often be in different counties and so it wouldn't be a conflict and even if to the extent there would be a conflict, we always kept our conversations separate from our jobs. So I anticipate that there'll be some isolation and but I think I'm prepared for that. And at the same time, I will still try to maintain those friendships but on a purely social level and I think that that'll be manageable. I hope it will be. All right. Best to you. Thank you. Any other questions? Senator White, you probably saw the judge in the nominating board. Right and asked plenty of questions then. So I will just say good luck in Caledonia County. Thank you Senator. I guess. And Essex. Well, particularly Essex. The court reopening is actually a difficult, it's a subject and that we're actually, I have a meeting on one day with Justice Eaton and some others to see if there's something we can do in the Budget Adjustment Act to help with reopening. But as a prosecutor form a prosecutor now a judge and stepping into a new county and being trained remotely. Are the things that, what kind of things struck you as really needed in order to get back to some form of normalcy? Well, certainly the ability to be in person in some cases is, you can't really discount it, particularly criminal cases. I think it's difficult for defendants who are not able to speak with their, attorneys in person when they're doing arraignments and processes for starting. So whatever we can do to get back in person or at least have the option to be in person, I think is vital. And in terms of what's needed logistically, that's a little hard for me to say, I know that there's been talk about increasing the availability of masks so that we can be a little more protected while we're in the courthouse. But generally I'd say whatever we can do to, let people back in the courthouse would be great. I do appreciate that, we've been able to do a great deal of work remotely the last almost two years now. And I think it's made that availability, I think can be used even past the pandemic in the future. But that's if people are comfortable appearing remotely, but I think a lot of folks really want to be in person and if we can make that happen, I think that'll be the best for all of us. Great, all right. I don't have any other questions. I think you've answered the point and Judge Zonay, thank you very much for introducing us.