 Good morning and welcome Sarah. Good morning. Thank you so much for having me for the record. Sarah Robinson deputy director at the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence and thank you so much for the invitation to provide testimony on h183 today. And largely we very much support this bill which seeks to address and improve Vermont system of response to sexual violence. And as you've heard from the lead sponsor of the bill and other witnesses already this morning, just wanted to provide some additional framing about sexual violence in Vermont. As representative Copeland houses outlined it in the United States approximately one out of one in five women have experienced sexual assault and over one in three women have experienced other forms of sexual violence, such as sexual coercion or unwanted sexual conduct. And although national prevalence studies do indicate that women carry the greatest burden of sexual violence over their lifetimes. We very much know that men are also impacted by sexual violence. And here in Vermont, we're not exempt from those sobering statistics in 2019. Around 1500 individuals reached out to a Vermont network member organization for assistance with some form of sexual violence. And one in 10 female students in Vermont report being physically forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want to. The benefits of color in Vermont are more likely than white students to have been forced to have sexual intercourse and LGBTQ students are more than three times as likely to be forced to have sexual intercourse compared to their heterosexual and cisgendered peers. So there's, as you've already been speaking about there's really four primary components of this bill and I'm just going to speak to each of them briefly. And this is updating and modernizing the consent statute as understandings of sexual violence in our culture and its impacts have evolved over the past several decades, so to have definitions of consent. And H 183 proposes to really update and modernize Vermont's consent statute to kind of bring it up to evolving cultural mores around around consent. We feel like the language that's proposed in H 183 certainly more accurately capture situations involving drug facilitated sexual assault, and clarifies that lack of verbal and physical resistance, previous dating relationship, the manner of dress of the victim, all of those things do not consent, do not constitute consent to sexual assault. It also updates the statute as it relates to individuals who are unable to consent to sexual activity to do to disability and I would just note that of significance. Vermonters living with a disability are twice as likely as those without a disability to experience sexual or intimate partner violence. On the data reporting section. We do believe that these general requirements in an annual report to the General Assembly will help support the legal systems response to sexual violence. And as has been mentioned, despite the high prevalence of sexual violence in our culture. Sexual assault remains an extremely under reported crime with nearly 80% of sexual assaults going unreported and because of this. It's especially important that when a survivor does choose to report a sexual assault, which is a very weighty decision that the legal system really provides a robust and reliable response. And so ensuring that this data is publicly and transparently available annually will assist in future reform efforts to better target systems improvements and understand how the legal system can best meet the needs of victims. This also includes funding to begin an expansion of forensic medical care. To primary care or reproductive health care settings. And as Michelle noted the Vermont forensic nursing program is a statewide program it trains and supports a cadre of over 100 nurses statewide. And nurses provide specialized medical care and forensic evidence collection for child adolescent and adult victims of sexual assault and domestic violence, and a standardized evidence kit is used to collect and preserve that that evidence. To give you a sense of what that looks like in 2020. About 320 adults and 67 children were treated by one of these specialized forensic nurses in Vermont, but currently this care is only available in hospital emergency department settings. This expansion will help ensure that additional victims and survivors are able to access this care in familiar settings with trusted providers, and that that care is really integrated with their broader health care needs. And finally on the intercollegiate sexual violence prevention council. The establishment of such a council was a key recommendation of the legislative task force on campus sexual harm and I did submit to the committee the final report of that. Very time limited legislative task force that did exist several years ago. But this council will serve to really coordinate and innovate responses to sexual violence across campuses in Vermont. And one in five female female students and just over one in five transgender students are assaulted on college campuses. The violence within these institutions are is especially complex, and that really is due to issues related to student privacy, Title nine proceedings, and variable law enforcement involvement in campus sexual assaults. So the intercollegiate sexual violence prevention council that's proposed in the language would ensure would assist in really ensuring that these responses and prevention efforts on campuses across Vermont are coordinated, and that resources and best practices are shared across large and small private and public institutions. Bill as you'll see includes a small appropriation for the network to staff the council when the campus sexual harm task force discussed this recommendation, there were no, there were no volunteers raising their hands to staff this staff this council and so we would we would gladly, you know, have a state agency or some other entity staff this council but in the lack lack of any other entity raising their hand to do so. We are we're happy to provide kind of the administrative and technical support for this body. And that's it for me. And I'm not sure if you saw my four year old who is trying to hand me something during testimony but hopefully it wasn't wasn't too much of a distraction. No, no. We love that I love that I should say, great. Thank you for your testimony. Sarah, in terms of the appropriation for the forensic nursing program. It was critically important and I was, and this committee has actually done work on that issue before and is that being asked for anywhere else are you having that discussion elsewhere. Because I would encourage you to or we could certainly talk about it as a committee. It is not being asked for anywhere else but we would very much be happy to fold that into other related appropriations requests that are being made. Yeah, great. Thank you. Committee members any questions for Sarah. Coach. So on on the appropriations. Question. Would that fall within our recommended jurisdiction from a policy perspective. Looking at Ken and 90. I know Barbara's in a probes right now, but. I think we can make a very good case for it's very consistent with what we've done before and, you know, in the work in terms of the, the kits remember we did quite a bit. Yeah, work on the kits and I'm a nurses and also I think in the COVID budget that funds that we worked on. So, so certainly I. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks Sarah. Thank you. Thank the little one too. I just wanted to mention if you are interested in just, you know, going upstairs to pitch the 40,000 for their friends and nurse program I can take that language out of H 183, not not remove it but I can duplicate it just as a standalone if the judiciary does want to go while approaches discussing the budget if you wanted to make sure that it's in there as well just let me know. I'm happy to do that. Okay, great I appreciate that I know Barbara this afternoon. Barbara and Ken will be will be discussing. You know various appropriation request Barbara is there now listening to testimony so. But I just depending upon what happens with this bill I don't I don't want to lose sight of that. So possible. Great. They're questions for for Sarah. Okay, great. Oh, Bob. Was that are you waiting to buy or do you have a question. No I have a question actually. Okay. All right great and then Ken. Thank you. Yeah. I'm looking at your testimony and the documents you've submitted are your statistics in those documents someplace as far as certain individuals. Yes, I will. I will submit those. Those right now to the committee assistant. Thank you. Thank you. Ken. I assume a private university or college. May have serious reservation. Taking up more more of this on their campus. For lack of better words, I don't know what words I want to say on this but I freeze. Yeah, you did. I don't know anything. Now I do, but if you, if you could, can we set your question please because you did freeze up. I would assume that private universities and colleges probably will be reluctant to take up more of. Or to monitor this situation more closely. Is that maybe a fair statement. I think that that varies across institution and how institutions take this up. I wouldn't necessarily, you know, in my experience, I wouldn't necessarily, I don't think there is one particular way public versus private institutions take this up I would say that all institutions in higher education have similar requirements in terms of upholding the rights of their students to access education and part of that is the title nine process that is part of higher education across institutions, whether they be public or private. I don't necessarily see a distinction between the way that public versus private institutions take this up other than institutions that tend to be highly resourced are perhaps able to dedicate additional staff time and resources to this and institutions that don't have as many resources. There's often people wearing multiple hats that are addressing sexual violence. So I should resay that I guess the state college programs and stuff like that where they're under more, more watch of the of government that's all coach. So was the independent colleges. Were they represented on your task force. That organization. Yes, they were the previous task force the independent colleges were represented. Thank you. Any other questions for Sarah. Okay, great. Thank you having me. Yeah, appreciate it. Okay, now turn to the state's attorney Rory Chivo. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. And for the record, I'm right here with the Washington County State's attorney. It's great to be back with the committee and nice to see some new faces and some familiar faces to start by saying thank you to represent Copenhagen's for taking lead on draft and I think is an important update to Vermont's sexual assault statutes and clarifying the definition of consent. I want to start by just noting that other speakers have talked spoken as well but from the lens of a prosecutor, the type of cases we see now are radically different than the types of cases that were believed to be out there or reported 30 years ago when the statute was last revisited the days of the rate myth, if you will, of it always being a woman and it being a stranger is hopefully long to spell at least in policy circles if not the general public. In Washington County in the last two years we have had victims that are female male, who are non binary, who are straight, gay, who are young, old, our oldest victim was 84 years old. Youngest unfortunately is three years old. We have Latin X victims, black victims, white victims, sexual assault is pervasive across every social economic group and every discernible demographic group you could possibly have. So much is how we look at such assault has changed. The types of cases we're seeing are also diversified and broader and representative of who we are as reminders. I'm in support of the changes here and as a matter of background many of you know that prior to coming back to Vermont. I was an active duty judge advocate in the United States Army. Through that I live through what one could call the military sexual assault crisis. In the front page of headlines, but about 10, 10 to 12 years ago, the sex, the crisis of sex assault in military ranks was at the forefront of the United States Congress's efforts and also military leaders. In 2007, the modern federal statute defining redefining rather sexual assault abuse sexual contact, among other offenses wasn't acted by the United States Congress. You know for code military justice was updated in 2008 2012 and 2016 suffice to say the definitions that are being adopted here with respect to substantial impairment of an individual due to alcohol. Among others, the definition for consent closely mirrors the developments have taken place when the federal system and military system modernized their statutes. There are other changes where Vermont has gone it alone or been blazing the trail. This is a case where we may be lagging a little behind some other jurisdictions, but that has its benefits to answer some of the concerns raised by Rebecca Turner. I would disagree with her respectfully right now our system is confusing because we often have to dig into case law and use jury instructions as a way of informing a jury of what they need to be deciding. We're putting a lot of putting a lot of pressure on defense counsel and on courts and prosecutors that matter to make up these definitions and go and that's part of the reason why there's so much litigation that does reach the appellate level, because of the lack of clarity at times. The borrowing from a jurisdiction that has been using this for an excess of 10 years such as the federal government is incredibly helpful and I remind the committee that right now, if someone were to be charged federally the standard we're talking about applies so Vermont is already faced or subject to the standard if they are federally prosecuted. Likewise, our men and women in the National Guard whether they are when they're in a federalized status or subject to uniform code military justice meaning people right here in Vermont can be prosecuted under these standards and definitions. So in that sense there's really not much revolutionary here. I think that Michelle did an excellent job, adapting those definitions to Vermont's existing structure. So matter illustration. I want to go through a recent case that we've charged under just the generic existing language of someone who was someone who engaged in a sexual act with another person and compelled the other person to participate in the sexual act without the consent of that other person. So this is an active case I'm not going to use the names. But it was an acquaintance situation. There was alcohol involved. And the complaint witness or victim, let's victim in the case was at the point where she had vomited multiple times and was in and out of consciousness by her toilet. It's at that time that the alleged perpetrator came in initially helped her and then decided that because of her perceived moaning that he that he believed that to be an invitation to initiate sexual conduct. The definitions here under the circumstances of turning to page turning to page three specifically no person shall engage in a sexual act with another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to a impairment by alcohol drugs or other intoxicants and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by that person. Taking that language in this example, under normal circumstances, a reasonable rational sober person would likely realize that this is not a person who is in a state to make a knowing and intelligent decision about whether to engage in sexual conduct, even with the presence of alcohol a reasonable person probably recognize that that was not someone who is in a state to consent to the sexual act. The definition here does not so much redefining this does not so much change the standard of what we already deal with rather it sharpens its focus. And it provides a clear and consistent definition that's not left to prosecutors defense counsel courts to work out ad hoc in the middle of trials as a work through the jury instructions or jury charge. Another thing to note is that nothing here changes the traditional defenses available to a defendant in a sexual assault situation, particularly mistake of fact as to consent. There can be any number of attendant circumstances that would suggest that someone did in fact have a reasonable belief that the person that they engage in act with did in fact consent to it. So nothing here in terms of refocusing or redefining or providing a better definition changes the availability of those defenses. To an extent I do respectfully disagree with Mr Turner's characterization that this is expanding drastically the scope of cases that could come in. To that end I think it's important to note that this committee has done outstanding work in the past few years in terms of criminal justice reform. A lot of that has been a fender focused in terms of modernizing the correction system, changing how prosecutors assessments of what cases do or do not go to diversion. When it comes to other crimes in serious crime such as this. It's not a zero some game of victims rights versus offender rights, rather we all benefit from a modernization and standardization of language and statute. It benefits from monitors to have a clear and consistent definition of consent and a standard that's consistent with our federal partners meaning there's not going to be two standards of what consent is or is not in the state rather it's one standard. And I think there are great benefits in adopting the language as drafted, and I think we can look favorably to federal jurisdictions and military jurisdictions that has successfully used this. It's a matter of reference in my military background. I was both a prosecutor and a defense counsel. I have, I won cases under these standards. I lost case on these standards both as a prosecutor and defense counsel. What I can say with great confidence is this, our jurors are intelligent, deliberate, contemplative and dedicated to the public service that they're called upon to do. Facts are what decide these cases more often than the technical legal definitions. But that said, a clear and precise set of legal standards will only help those jurors make the best decision possible based on those facts. The final point I'd like to make is it's also important to know when discussing racial disparities and justice that those same disparities can apply to victims. Victims could come from all different types of backgrounds, and the particular barriers for victims from different subsets of our state's population can be different. There are different barriers for someone who is a college student who goes to school with someone every day. There is a different barrier for someone who does not have English as a first language. There's a different barrier for someone who is sexually assaulted in a domestic or partnership situation. So it's incumbent upon us to ensure that there are multiple paths for people to come forward and also have confidence in a clear and effective system to ensure that justice is done whether that results in a criminal conviction or merely a comprehensive investigation. Thank you. Thank you very much. It was very helpful. See if we have any questions from the committee or Michelle. The committee members first if they have questions. Thank you, Michelle. I'm not seeing any handsome. So go ahead, Michelle. Thanks, right? Actually, Selena does. I'm sorry. Michelle can jump in. I don't mean to scoop. Anyway, I was just, thanks for that. I appreciate it. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the questions that will and Bob had earlier around how you navigate the cases where you do have both the actor and the alleged victim who may have been impaired to some degree with regard to, you know, with intoxicants and or you have a situation where maybe the actor has a disability that may affect their ability to assess whether or not there's really consent or not. So I thought maybe you could share some of your experience and help us understand a little more about that. I'll actually return to my military days of a lot of our cases were military barracks isn't that dissimilar from a college campus in terms of you have a lot of 18 to 24 year olds. There's frequently a large amount of alcohol and a lot of blowing off steam for some military sites when you come back from the field on a college campus after an exam or maybe after a sporting event or something else. So it's common to see situations where the alleged offender and alleged victim were both under the influence of alcohol. That being said, that's where it comes into play about what is or is not a reasonable mistake of fact. Notwithstanding that someone else is impaired there, I guess to put in this context maybe to take a step back. There's a lot of definition under both federal military standards of what exactly is impairment by alcohol or drugs or other intoxicants. That's to the point where the person is incapable of consenting that's a fairly high standard to get to. And in practice, those cases would often turn on questions of whether someone merely had a blackout and couldn't recall certain events that happened versus them being actually passed out or not in a position or state to make such a determination. So this is not just your garden variety of you know someone's drunk and acting loud. It's beyond that it's, you know, to put it in sort of physical or graphic terms. When I think of the standard I think of that young lady I described who is sort of curled up in a fetal position by a toilet after vomiting multiple times from excess alcohol use, it's not just somebody who's had, you know, two or three glasses of wine. You know, we make any number of other legal presumptions where people are still able to consent despite being under the influence of alcohol. If we were to go and say that well someone who's under the influence of alcohol can't be held accountable for the responsibilities and our whole DUI law structure would be upended in that sense because you know what normal rational person would want to get in the car and drive with a 0.25 of the AC, but that's not how it works so I would harken back and say that the attendant circumstances matter, both in turn, predominantly focused on what is the actual objective situation of that alleged victim and what facts and information were available to that person. So if someone lacks the capacity or has other barriers to understanding that the law does then generally doesn't look favorably upon cultural variations or differences between what may be acceptable and say one country versus another rather, it tends to be more neutral looking at what would someone else standing that situation, what would a reasonable person if you will standing that situation see. Again, with that example seeing someone on the ground who's effectively nonverbal and has drank alcohol and excess. That would generally, I think hopefully the members of the committee and those here today would not be an invitation or suggestion that that person wanted to engage in sexual activity, rather, probably the opposite that they need to abstain from such. All I can say an addition that is this that every case that is tape that is actually filed or charged. And we talked about this before that already there's a lower, there's a low reporting rate versus the number of cases that occurs there's an even lower rate of cases that are accepted for prosecution, and then there's still a lower rate that are actually prosecuted to a conviction. Along the way, there is discretion, and I think you can look that most prosecutors in the state of Vermont are. We're not rich in resources, and we often have to make very difficult decisions up front about whether it is feasible or not that we can prevail but with proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt. In a sense the gatekeeping into itself often does take into account those particularities of a offenders background history or mental status at the time of an offense, and likewise, the status of that victim. At the end of the day we make the best judgment we can about whether to proceed or not to proceed. And even, you know, even the step further, even if those cases are brought. There's no guarantee of success at trial, and moreover, if there is a conviction. Everything you just mentioned would likely be considered or should be considered by the court as evidence and mitigation in terms of rendering a sentence and certainly the degree of risk for someone. We're not literally engaging in an act, or pre planning or dragging someone may be different than a situation where a incapacity individuals yet taken advantage of. So I hope that helps answer it's, it's something that there's an awful lot of both federal and military case law that deals with those questions and I encourage stakeholders to look at that to get some further information as well. Hello, sorry, I'm on the phone with the health department and so I'm going to pass on my question, I apologize. Okay, all right, no worries take care. Okay. Any, anybody else any other questions. Great. Thank you very much for it. It's good to see you appreciate your time. Thank you so much great to see all of you as well and I'm sure I mean I will have some other great information to share from our side. Okay, great, thank you and that is a great segue into our media medic welcome so much to our committee. Okay. Great. Hello everyone. Thank you so much for allowing me to testify. And I will start. My name is Armina medic, and I work as a victims advocate and she didn't County State's Attorney's Office. I've been in this role for 14 years. And six years ago I was assigned to Cousy. So on daily basis, I work closely with survivors of sexual assaults and fear of being ostracized judged, not being believed, or retaliated against is often the reason why victims don't come forward. They often feel self doubt, blame, shame, and humiliation. Deciding to come forward, even though you are giving services, you are constantly reminded of it. It means that while you are going through it, the system, you will not have any privacy and that you will be re traumatized by it. They often feel like they are the ones on trial. Since the defense often focuses on victims behavior. If the victim survivor reports the assault, there is no guarantee that perpetrator is going to be held accountable. Because some of the cases don't meet the burden of proof and the state does not have enough evidence to go forward. The computer and I have to make those dreading phone calls to survivors to let them know that the state will not be able to prosecute because of those reasons. In instance where the charges are brought against the perpetrator, victim survivors are faced by constant reminder of having to relive the assault. And just because the charges are brought does not mean the case will end in conviction. Defense often in these cases uses as defense to attack the victim's credibility. He said she said, because we all know these cases often happen behind closed doors. And not to mention incapacitation, level of intoxication, lack of or spotty memory. Long process often leaves victims question if it was even worth reporting in. Even if the result is conviction, there's no guarantee that appeal won't happen. This bill will not solve all of the problems, but it will definitely clarify the law around the consent. It would validate the experiences of survivors that have not come forward and hopefully encourage the victims who are facing these challenges to come forward. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's nice to meet you. I don't think I've met you before. So, so welcome. Okay. Thank you. Committee members. I, any questions? Okay. Great. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you representative. Great. Thank you. Okay. So then we will. End with the League of Cities and Towns. Great. Good morning. Morning. Morning. Hi, everybody. I'm so happy that I sat through all of that testimony. That was really insightful. And I'm happy that I. Sat through chief chief of Montpeliers testimony and the commissioner. As well because it helps answer a bit of the questions that I had in relation to the bill. So, um, VLCTs, you know, we're only testifying as it relates to municipalities. So I, I, I had to sound like a broken record, but we're going to focus on the data part of it, the data collection piece of it. Um, and I sort of, as I read the bill last night, I identified four sort of issues that we might have with it as written, but I think, um, again, listening to the commissioners comments, they shed a little bit of light on some of the questions I had had. Um, the first being is how, what vehicle law enforcement officers and constables would be using to report this data, because right now, um, there really isn't a standardized approach to how you would do that it's not like something that exists. And that also led into the question about the record management system that DPS is pushing out right now that the commissioner had spoken to. And so if it's from, if I understood the testimony correctly, the, um, the data management data management system would have the capabilities of bringing forth this information will buy whatever data sets they're collecting. Um, so that's great because it would be standardized and it would be sort of a way where, you know, because the data is only as good as the data put into it right so if it's not standardized and if it's not coded the same way and if it's not if you're not using the same language. Um, it doesn't, it's not really helpful sometimes so the standardization of it is really, really, really important. Um, and if the committee moves forward with the language as is and doesn't wait for the commissioner saying you'll come back next year we might have these data sets that actually speak to the larger issues that you're trying to get out with the bill rather than just counting the number of cases. Um, it would be really helpful to have definitions of what constitutes a case a quote unquote case, and because it's not really clear, at least as written right now, what exactly law enforcement is supposed to report like what at what level, a call for service becomes a quote unquote case. Um, so those are the comments that that we have I think overall the, the work, we're really excited about the data management system that's coming forth because everybody wants good data everyone wants standardized on, and having this information is obviously helpful for everybody so whether it's using the mandate as is now or waiting to have the bits of data that speak to the larger issue I don't really have a comment on but I think definitions and standardization are really important. Okay, that's that's helpful and and government operations will also would be you know would be looking at this section related to you know their jurisdiction and would be taking more testimony so that's helpful to just get initial reactions and questions so thank you very much. Committee members questions. Okay, so let's see if I look great well thank you so much good to see you. Okay, great. Alright, so actually I'm going to I do see that Chief Jen Morrison is here so to make sure that if you're listening. I just want to give you an opportunity to add anything. I don't, I don't necessarily have anything to offer for the record my name is Jennifer Morrison sorry about this I'm moving my screen. Official title is the executive director of policy development for the Department of Public Safety, but I got my official title well after my email footer got built, which introduces me as the special assistant to the commissioner. I did want to confirm what Ms. Zake off said from VLCT that when the state police transition to Valkor which is the cat RMS system currently in use by approximately 45 municipal and sheriff's agencies in the state that that will be a considerable impact towards consistent consistency in the fields of data that are put in to the cat RMS system, and therefore of course ensuring consistency to come out. One of the other things that is quite appealing about using Valkor as the cat RMS system is that as areas become known that we want to take a deeper dive into or collect more data points on. We have a lot more control to build fields of data as opposed to some of the much larger vendors where even just to create say a drop down with new choices to select a condition or a circumstance code could take six months and thousands of dollars in programming expenses. So, when the legislature or other stakeholders indicate that there's an important data set to be collected. This system is much more nimble than than the previous one or the current one that the state police are on. So this will be a significant step forward to have the whole state on the same cat RMS system. And I did also find all of the testimony and lightning. And I applaud your very important work. I was also the director of the sex crimes unit in Chittenden County for many years. And this is, this is a really difficult area. And I really am delighted that you're bringing more clarity to the issue of consent, not only as a law enforcement professional but as the mother of to 20 something year old daughters and having heard many of the. Representative Copeland Hans talked about the around the fire pit stories and I can confirm that many of my children's contemporaries have shared some pretty hair raising stuff. So the work you're doing is super impactful. Thank you. Great. Well, thank you. I appreciate those comments. Well, thank you. Okay, any questions committee. Anything else. Okay. All right, well, great. Then I guess we will