March 5, 2025

This joke is so nerdy that 
it may require a reverse 
image search

By Andy Delaney

I used the date this entry order issued for a few reasons. If you think it's just because I'm lazy and it's a Sunday with a lost hour as I'm writing this, uh, well, you're wrong. It's also . . . It's primarily because the lone published entry order that issued this week did not issue on Friday but on Wednesday and I'm trying to signal that with the title. Jeez. Making excuses for being lazy is way too much work. 

Enough of all that. Let's get to the entry order ("fun" citation fact, you can tell when an opinion is a published entry order by the parenthetical "(mem.)"; only the Bluebook editors know why we do this. Yes, I linked to Wikipedia 100% on purpose). No, really . . . . This case is a second look at whether defendants held without bail can get a second chance at freedom. SCOV notes that while defendants can request reconsideration of a hold-without-bail order, they need to show substantial changes in circumstances—not just tweaks to their release plan.

Ms. Johnson was charged with first-degree murder and held without bail  in September 2024. Four months later (that's January 2025 for those keeping score at home), she asked the trial court to reconsider, pointing to her modified release plan that added another responsible adult and noting that a previously missing firearm had been located. The trial court denied her request. Ms. Johnson appeals.

SCOV affirms. Though SCOV makes clear that a defendant held without bail can request more than one (that's two so far for those keeping score . . . okay, I'll stop) review, such a defendant must present "new relevant facts or evidence or establish a basis for concluding that there has been a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant reconsideration." The trial court's discretion in making this determination is "extremely broad." 

In Ms. Johnson's case, SCOV reasons that her new release plan is essentially a repackaging of her original plan with minor additions, and though finding the missing gun removed one concern, the trial court reasonably determined this wasn't enough given the serious nature of the charges and the strong evidence against her.

So, SCOV clarifies that if one is held without bail in Vermont, one bite at the proverbial apple isn't necessarily all you get. However, a successful second attempt requires genuine, substantial changes in circumstances—not just the passage of time or smallish modifications to the release plan. The trial court has very broad discretion to determine if new circumstances warrant reconsidering its original decision. This one gets affirmed despite the trial court's arguably incorrect musing about whether it even had jurisdiction to consider the motion. State v. Johnson, 2025 VT 11 (mem.)