VTDigger posts regular coronavirus updates on this page. You can also subscribe here for daily coronavirus news. Please send your Covid-19 questions to coronavirus@vtdigger.org
It’s been more than three years since Peggy Shores was charged with shooting and killing her husband in a home they shared in Mount Tabor.
Shores, who has been jailed since her arraignment in February 2017 on a second-degree murder charge in the death of David Shores, was set to stand trial in June. She claims that the shooting in December 2016 was an accident, while prosecutors counter the evidence tells a different tale.
On Thursday, her attorney, Steven Howard of Rutland, got bad news.
The Vermont Supreme Court announced the extension of its judicial emergency order due to the coronavirus pandemic, delaying criminal jury trials for several months and civil court trials to the start of next year.
Now, Peggy Shores, as well as a host of other defendants around Vermont seeking to stand trial in front of a jury of peers, will have to wait.
“We’re going to seek any redress under the rules,” Howard said. “We’re seeking the trial as soon as we possibly can.”
In the latest change to the emergency order issued in March, the high court, which oversees the state’s judicial system, suspended all jury trials in criminal cases until Sept. 1, and in all civil cases until Jan. 1.
Previously, the emergency order had been set to run through May 31. The latest change extends it through Sept. 1.
But, the high court is easing some of the restrictions that have been in place since the start of the crisis. The order lifts a suspension of non-emergency proceedings in superior court and the judicial bureau. Starting June 1, those non-emergency hearings can proceed.
When possible, those hearings will take place remotely.
“We’re still going to be opening in an atmosphere where we’re trying to keep the numbers of individuals down who are coming to court recognizing that those numbers will be greater than they have been over the last two months,” Chief Superior Judge Brian Grearson said Thursday.
Grearson said that criminal jury trials are slated to start before civil jury trials because in those criminal cases some of the defendants may be detained awaiting trial.
“Clearly there is a need to process those cases first,” Grearson said. “There is a lot of work ahead to get these cases ready for trial and then actually conduct the trials in what is essentially a new working environment.”
The Vermont Supreme Court, in an “explanatory note” extending the judicial emergency through Sept. 1, wrote that date may not be set in stone.
“This does not signal that the existing provisions in the emergency order will necessarily remain in place until that time,” the court wrote, adding that more changes are anticipated to deal with the evolving conditions of the pandemic.
“The extension until September 1 reflects a recognition that the public-health crisis that gave rise to this Order is not likely to fully resolve before September 1,” the court added, “and deviations from historical court practice, or modifications to at least some court rules, will be necessary through the upcoming summer.”
The court also cautioned that the lifting of the suspension of the non-emergency hearings “doesn’t signal” that hearings across all court dockets will start immediately.
Instead, the document stated, courts will schedule hearings based on several factors, including staff availability, social distancing requirements, remote technology for certain hearings, and the availability of the parties and attorneys.
The Vermont Judiciary on Thursday also released an 18-page “Blueprint for Expansion of Court Operations.” The document outlines the steps the court system will be taking moving forward.
The report stated that as the court system starts holding non-emergency hearings June 1, priority will be given to juvenile cases and those involving defendants detained pre-trial.
As for the future when jury trials are permitted to resume, the report stated, court clerks have identified certain courts that can accommodate trials with full juries with little modification and maintain social distancing.
“The committee considered suggestions made to hold trials in public or private spaces other than courthouses, e.g. a college auditorium or high school gym,” the report stated.
“While consideration may be given to this issue in the future,” the report added, “it should be noted that this would require the moving of staff and security equipment and acknowledgement from the owners of these sites of the inherent security risks of the presence of incarcerated defendants.”
The judiciary is also seeking $4.9 million in the fiscal year 2020 budget adjustment act as well as an additional $2.6 million for the first half of fiscal year 2021 to meet Covid-19-related needs. The nearly $5 million request is included in the budget adjustment act approved by the House Appropriations Committee this week and is now heading to the full House for consideration.
The judiciary initiatives proposed to be funded by those requests include:
- Creating safe spaces for staff as well as for participants in court proceedings.
- Adding remote technology for court proceedings and to provide public access to those proceedings.
- Advancing remote technology and services for court uses, such as the livestreaming of court hearings.
“In an environment where social distancing seems it’s going to be in place for a while and with the uncertainty about when the pandemic may or may not surge,” Patricia Gabel, Vermont’s court administrator said, “we think it’s crucial to have this live-streaming capability and these video remote hearings so we can continue these judicial hearings while keeping participants and the media and court staff safe.”
Jerry O’Neill, a Burlington attorney and former federal prosecutor in Vermont, said while some in the legal community may be “frustrated” by the delay in jury trials, he expected most would understand the reasoning behind it.
“It’s reality,” O’Neill said. “This doesn’t come as any surprise. I’m surprised, pleasantly surprised, that they believe they will be able to go back to criminal jury trials as soon as the first of September.”
He said it made sense to start jury trials first, ahead of the civil trials. “You have to give priority to criminal cases because people have a right to speedy trial and you also have people who are incarcerated,” he said.
John Campbell, executive director of the Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, said he understood it will take some time before the high court comes up with a complete solution that allows for proper social distancing for selecting a jury as well as holding a jury trial.
Campbell said in some high-profile cases a jury pool of well over 100 people could be called in for questioning at one time by attorneys before a jury is seated.
“Having a jury trial, that’s going to be extremely perplexing to be able to figure out,” he said. “The courtrooms that we currently have would not be able to handle it in the way we’ve done it.”
Vermont Legal Aid submitted a letter Thursday to Vermont Supreme Court Justice Harold Eaton making recommendations about the prioritization of cases going forward as well as raising access issues that will need to be addressed.
Eaton is the chair of the Long-Term Planning Committee established by Chief Justice Paul Reiber to make recommendations to the high court.
“To ensure equal access,” the letter from Vermont Legal Aid stated, “litigants will need access to ‘kiosks’ in the courthouses which will allow them to join hearings by video or telephone if they do not have access to such technology at home.”
📈 Get the latest statistics and live updates on our coronavirus page.
📫 Sign up for our coronavirus email list.
🗣️ Tell us your story or give feedback at coronavirus@vtdigger.org.
❓ Get answers to FAQs in our Covid-19 knowledge base.
🛒 See what’s open near you in our business directory.
🙏 Support our nonprofit journalism with a donation.
Read the story on VTDigger here: High court delays criminal jury trials until September, civil trials until next year.