BURLINGTON, VT – A motion to suppress evidence was delayed after both original counsel for the prosecution and the defense were not present, further delaying a straightforward case and wasting the presence of two out of the three prosecution witnesses, noted a frustrated judge here in Vermont Superior Court Friday.
The accused is charged with driving under the influence and the case had been pending for a year and two months because of repeated postponements by both parties, as well as witness attendance request issues.
Judge John Pacht commented that the case was “not overly complex,” and was motivated to settle the discrepancy.
Due to the absences, standing in for defense attorney Robert Kaplan was associate defense attorney Patrick Lamb. And standing in for Deputy State’s Attorney Kristin Hartley was Deputy State’s Attorney Kelton Olney.
DSA Olney stated his frustration, letting the court know his office had contacted the office of Attorney Kaplan Tuesday alerting them of the attendance of two key witnesses at Friday’s hearing. Lamb stated he had not had the chance to see the communication as Attorney Kaplan’s absence was due to a recent and prolonged jury case the day before.
DSA Olney noted that one of the State’s witnesses, who was not present, required extensive travel to appear in court, further delaying the length of the case.
In response, the defense stated they would allow a WebX attendance in this instance to speed up the ordeal. Both parties agreed on this for the future meeting.
Judge Pacht said that he would have liked to see better communication, and in the future would “appreciate attorney communication back and forth with each other,” adding “sorry to the folks who came here today,” referring to the two witnesses who were in attendance and ready to testify.
Judge Pacht was hesitant to continue with proceedings, mentioning the accused hired attorney Kaplan, who was familiar with the case, not attorney Lamb. Attorney Lamb responded he had the ability to stand in for anything but the trial, though Judge Pacht was still unsatisfied and wanted all parties present.
After being asked about attorney Kaplan’s future schedule, attorney Lamb said that he could not provide the exact details to plan a future date for the hearing.
After confirming that DSA Olney and DSA Hartley will be present at the future hearing, Judge Pacht set a later date for the motion to be heard.
