Vermont Bar Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2 Summer 2014, Vol. 40, No. 2 | Page 25

Apparently, in speaking to both (the Victim’s Advocate) on Friday and you today, the parties most affected by this incident (the offender and her supporters and the family members of the young woman who died) are interested in participating in a group conference. The main issue at this point between the State and the Defense appears to be whether the conference should occur pre- or post-sentence. From my perspective as the potential facilitator, this is not a crucial issue so long as the defendant is not being coerced into participating in this process. Two of the basic conditions necessary before any conference is convened are that the defendant admits guilt and that all parties participate voluntarily. As long as those conditions are met, a conference might be held at any point on the criminal justice continuum, from pre-adjudication to pre-release from incarceration. It was then clearly established that the intent of the court was to convene the conference post-sentence by way of the following response from Judge Zimmerman: Thank you for keeping me in the “loop” as you prepare to do your work on this case. I indicated to counsel that the conference could be post-plea as a condition of her probation. I will certainly make myself available if either counsel wish to speak with me about the logistics of a plea conference. However, I prefer to stay “out of the loop” at this point so that counsel may feel free to speak with any interested party w/o running afoul of involving the court in any discussions that could present ethical considerations. Thank you to all for your quick response. The next issue—what the exact wording of a special condition requiring a conference might be—was dealt with in an e-mail from me to defense counsel and the state’s attorney’s office. I felt this was an important issue as it might relate to the future use of conferencing as a condition of probation. While it was clear in this case that there were victims interested in participating, this might not always be the case. My main point was that the wording should make compliance with a condition requiring conferencing moot if there were no victims interested in participating. The final language of this condition read: www.vtbar.org SPECIAL ISSUE: A Facilitator’s Reflections or post-sentence. Below is an excerpt from an e-mail that I then sent to defense counsel with a copy to the state’s attorney and the court: You shall attend and fully participate in … a restorative justice/family group conference with members of (the deceased victim’s) family if a member or members of her immediate family … requests that such a conference be convened. Every indication was that the state’s attorney and defense counsel were agreed that a conference would be required as a new condition of probation. On the other hand, it obviously would not be a “done deal” until after sentencing. Over four months had already transpired since the incident/ death, and it was apparently the family