With advanced technology that allows video conferencing and the accessibility of attorneys via a wide range of communication platforms such as email and social media, there is a better way to reduce or, even outright eliminate the Vermont criminal court calendar call. However, for us to accomplish this feat, lawyers, judges, and defendants need to buy into a couple of modern-day principals.

Defense Attorneys Should Have Social Media Accounts

One of the prevailing arguments for maintaining the Calendar Call is that it may be the first time that defense attorneys can meet with their clients to discuss the details of the case. With a little ingenuity, this argument should fail.

Indigent clients, who make up a large number of criminal cases, on court dockets, struggle to maintain reliable channels of communication. Often they switch cell phone numbers numerous times, or simply do not have a reliable phone that they can afford. This makes communication with defendants and their attorneys difficult, especially when it comes to notifying defendants of court dates and potential offers to resolve their cases. Often, Defendants will rely on public wi-fi to access social media messaging accounts such as Snapchat or Instagram to stay in communication.

To provide access to their clients, all defense attorneys, including public defender offices should have firm social media accounts that allow their clients to send them messages. It can be a more reliable way for basic information to be passed along and to be able to coordinate the handling of a case. Further, with video conferencing widely available for free, the face-to-face meeting can be completed remotely and effectively.

Public Defender Meeting Days

It is a valid argument that for certain cases, there is no substitute for in-person meetings between a defendant and their attorney. To address these needs, instead of gathering all of the defendants together at once and having them sit in crowded hallways for an afternoon or morning, public defenders’ offices could schedule meeting days at the Courthouse. Reaching out to individual clients (via social media messaging if necessary) and scheduling 30-minute blocks of time for them to meet with their attorney at the courthouse would greatly reduce the number of people milling around and would allow attorneys to more efficiently prepare each case.

Proactive Prosecution Meetings

If a defense attorney’s first conversation with the prosecutor is at the Calendar Call, neither party has effectively utilized the time between arraignment and calendar call. The most efficient way to move cases forward is to discuss the cases with prosecutors within 90 days of the arraignment. In many cases, this conversation will allow the parties to come to a resolution. In other cases, it will at least give each side an indication of where the parties stand.

Defense Attorneys and Prosecutors Should Report To Judge Via Teleconference or Email

If the attorneys have conducted their reviews of the evidence and have consulted with each other, it is easy for the parties to quickly report to the judge the status of the case without needing to do so in person. During the COVID-19 crisis, attorneys have issued joint reports to the judge in writing stating that the case is either proceeding to trial, settling or the parties are requesting additional time to conduct further discovery. If the case is settling the court can schedule a change of plea hearing by blocking off the requested amount of time (normally between 15 minutes to an hour depending on the severity of the charge).

If the case requires a judge’s input, the parties can appear via video or teleconference. If the defendant needs to be present they can also appear via video conference either in their location or at their attorney’s office. This can be scheduled for a specific block of time, which again reduces the number of people crowding the halls and courtrooms and will allow parties to conduct their business more efficiently, knowing what they need to prepare for and when, as opposed to jumping up in the courtroom to get the judge’s attention over the other attorneys.

The Calendar Call Can Be a Waste of Everyone’s Time

The shutdown of courts has opened our eyes. Courts can be more efficient. And, in the process, attorneys and clients can also be more efficient. The simple solution in a post-COVID-19 world is to take steps readily available to us to limit our need for mass court hearings. This will not only ensure competent representation of the defendant’s or state’s interest but also protect everyone from needlessly being exposed to unhealthy situations.

It is very often a good idea for a defendant to take steps to address the perceived negative behavior related to their charge.  For example, if a defendant is charged with DUI, they should schedule an evaluation with a licenced drug and alcohol counselor (LADC) and adhere to any follow-up recommendations.  A certificate of participation or completion for this programming can be later obtained and presented to the judge or prosecutor. Typically there is similar programming available for issues like anger, substance abuse, safe parenting, domestic violence, unsafe driving etc.  

Importantly, such actions undertaken by a defendant cannot be the basis of admissible evidence against them to show that they more than likely engaged in the charged conduct.  Whether a defendant decides to ultimately admit the charged conduct or not, when they exhibit and demonstrate a proactive response to their own perceived unsafe behavior this will open the door to a negotiation and/ or sentencing that better considers their own needs.

If the judge assigns a defendant conditions of release these must be carefully followed or else attempts must be made to amend any conditions that are not appropriate.  Similarly, a defendant to a pending criminal case must avoid violating any applicable conditions of release, and avoid being charged for additional new criminal conduct.  An important goal for a defendant is to stay off the radar such that judges and prosecutors become more focused on other more serious or recent cases.

Criminal defendants should also avoid talking to coworkers, friends or casual acquaintances about their pending case.  Such sharing will typically only serve to complicate, and even worsen, the defendant’s overall situation. There may be times where it is appropriate to seek character references and the like, which can be provided to the judge and/ or prosecutor.  An experienced Vermont criminal lawyer can assist a defendant take stock and understand actions they might take to help themselves during the pendency of their criminal case.

The standard for GNO is rather broad and can encompass a large degree of alleged behavior, such as driving at excessive speeds, texting while driving or operating under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

One of the many keys to defending a GNO charge is to look critically at the operation of the motor vehicle and argue that the conduct does not amount to criminal negligence, which carries with it a significantly heavier burden then proving civil negligence.

To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence. Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person. Criminal negligence is conduct which is such a departure from what would be that of an ordinary prudent or careful person in the same circumstance as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life or an indifference to consequences. Criminal negligence is negligence that is aggravated, culpable or gross.  See USlegal.com

Often prosecutors and law enforcement will produce experts reports to support their position that the conduct alleged amounts to gross negligence.  If an accident is involved, these reports can include determinations by the expert that the accident was caused by the defendant’s failure to appreciate the risk that their operation of a motor vehicle was creating to himself and others.

Defending a gross negligent charge in Vermont involves a complex and multifaceted approach.  Attacking the investigation itself while also looking critically at the facts that are not in dispute is an essential part of this process.  Only though this analysis can a true determination be made as to the merits of the state’s case and in turn figuring out the best possible way to ensure that the individual charged with the offense is able to navigate their way to finding the best result.

Mr. Diou had been charged with Aggravated Domestic Assault in the First Degree, a felony that carried a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison, the state was proceeding on a theory of strangulation. The state also sought the lesser included Domestic Assault charge. Attorney Spensley informed the jury that his client acted in self-defense. “We are obviously very pleased that the jury reached the proper verdict. Mr. Diou acted in self defense after being assaulted in his home,” Attorney Spensley stated from his Pittsford office.