BURLINGTON, VT – A man accused of stalking and violating an abuse protection order was held in jail here this week without bail despite his protests that being incarcerated would destroy his career, and his defense attorney’s argument that the abuse protection order was not actually in place at the time of the incident.
The accused, who is currently being held at Northwest State Correctional Facility, appeared virtually for his arraignment at Chittenden County Superior Court. Deputy Public Defender Margaret Jansch also appeared virtually.
DPD Jansch argued the accused, who works as a pharmacist, is not a flight risk and is a productive community member whose life would be derailed by an extended incarceration.
Deputy State’s Attorney Sally Adams countered the accused had been working as a pharmacist a year ago, when he was convicted of domestic assault, and argued that his career was irrelevant.
The accused allegedly also violated his probation for that previous conviction when he violated the protection order by contacting the complaining party by phone and coming within 300 feet of her.
DPD Jansch pointed out there had technically not been a Relief From Abuse (RFA) order in effect when the accused contacted the complaining party. There had previously been an RFA that was withdrawn—another went into effect very shortly after the incident.
DSA Adams countered the accused used threats to coerce the complaining party into withdrawing the first RFA, noting the complaining party had filed the second soon after withdrawing the first.
Judge Navah C. Spero, who presided over the hearing, agreed that the situation with the multiple RFAs was “confusing,” and suggested there would likely be an opportunity at a later hearing for the defense to seek a dismissal.
However, the judge also pointed out that, even if there was no RFA in place, the accused had still violated his probation.
According to DSA Adams, the complaining party alleges the accused owns weapons, although no weapons were seized by the police when he was arrested.
Toward the end of the hearing, the accused addressed Judge Spero, stating, “If I’m going to be held, this is going to cost me my career and my livelihood,” adding that the accusations against him are false, and calling the situation “an absolute nightmare.”
Ultimately, Judge Spero ruled the accused would be held without bail, finding that although he does not pose a substantial flight risk, he does pose a substantial risk to public safety. Another hearing was set for August.
