Skip Court 16 Times and Walk Free: The Grand Isle Case That's Exposing Vermont's Bail Problem
Vermont law caps bail at $200 for certain misdemeanors. A Grand Isle defendant with 16 failures to appear walked out of court without bail — and did not return.
Vermont law sets a default bail ceiling of $200 for certain misdemeanors. A judge who wants to exceed that amount must make a specific legal finding that a higher amount is necessary to keep a defendant from fleeing prosecution.
For Grand Isle County State’s Attorney Douglas DiSabito, that statutory ceiling became the centerpiece of a courtroom argument on April 10, 2026, when he appeared before Judge Navah Spero and asked for a $500 arrest warrant for a defendant who had just missed his 17th court appearance in Vermont. Judge Spero’s response, according to DiSabito, was a question: why are you asking for more than $200?
DiSabito had an answer — the charge was what he described in court as a predicate offense, meaning a charge that, because of the defendant’s prior DUI conviction, carried enhanced legal weight sufficient to justify exceeding the statutory cap — and he got the warrant. But the fact that the question was asked at all, for a defendant with that history, is the subject of a press release DiSabito published Sunday that prompted immediate responses from legislative and law enforcement officials across Vermont.
“This is not treating failures to appear in court ‘so seriously,’” DiSabito wrote, quoting the Vermont Supreme Court back at itself, “like the Vermont Supreme Court said it does.”
The case that prompted the release
On January 31, 2026, Vermont State Police cited a 32-year-old Highgate man for driving with a criminally suspended license — suspended because of a prior DUI conviction. DiSabito formally charged the defendant on February 10. Under Vermont law, that charge carries a maximum sentence of two years. Vermont classifies any offense with a maximum sentence of two years or less as a misdemeanor; one additional day of maximum sentence would make the charge a felony.
The defendant was given a citation to appear in Grand Isle County on March 5. He did not appear.
He was arrested on March 16. Rather than imposing bail, a judge issued a judicial summons ordering him to appear on March 19. He did not appear.
He was arrested again on March 26 and arraigned on March 27 in Franklin County, appearing by video from a correctional facility while DiSabito appeared in person in St. Albans. By that point, according to DiSabito’s press release, the defendant had accumulated 3 felony convictions, 27 misdemeanor convictions — including three for lying to police and four for violating court orders — 18 violations of probation, and 16 prior failures to appear in Vermont courts.
At the arraignment, DiSabito argued for $500 bail. The judge imposed no bail. DiSabito, in his press release, described the defendant as appearing disinterested on video, yawning, while the judge asked if she was boring him.
The defendant was released. On April 9 — his next required court date in Grand Isle County — he did not appear. According to DiSabito’s press release, it was his 17th failure to appear in a Vermont court.
DiSabito went back to court the following day. He played Judge Navah Spero an audio recording of the March 27 arraignment — specifically, the moment when the judge ordered the defendant to appear on April 9. He asked for a $500 warrant. Judge Spero asked why he was seeking more than $200. DiSabito cited the defendant’s record and the predicate offense designation. The warrant was granted. As of publication, the defendant is on arrest warrant status.
The judge said the system works
Six weeks earlier, on February 12, 2026, Vermont Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify against a bill that would have required judges to impose bail in certain circumstances involving repeat failures to appear. The Vermont Judiciary, as represented by Chief Superior Judge Zonay’s testimony, opposed the bill.
Zonay’s argument was, in essence, that the system already works. “I would say we have an answer to this already,” Zonay told the committee, according to DiSabito’s press release. “The answer is the Judge fully and fairly considers all of the facts, and the individuals you are talking about — there is the ability to put those individuals [with] appropriate conditions on for bail if they don’t show up.” He added: “Often times, after two, after appearance, someone fails to appear two or three times, the Court will issue bail and impose it.”
To illustrate the kinds of defendants the legislation would affect, Zonay offered two examples: an eighty-year-old with Alzheimer’s disease, and a single mother with three children. According to DiSabito’s press release, Rep. Kenneth Goslant confirmed those were Zonay’s examples. Zonay agreed.
House Judiciary Vice Chair Rep. Tom Burditt, a West Rutland Republican, was not satisfied. “We do have a problem with people gaming the system,” Burditt told Zonay during the hearing, according to DiSabito’s press release. “People who are gaming the system four, five, six, seven times, and they just keep getting the citations — they’ve learned how to play the game. It’s just a joke to them.” He called for language that would make judicial arrest warrants mandatory for repeat no-shows.
The bill Burditt referenced — H.741, introduced by Rep. Thomas Oliver and co-sponsored by House Judiciary Chair Rep. Martin LaLonde — received one day of testimony on February 12, according to committee records. It has not advanced. The committee has taken no further action, and Chair LaLonde has not scheduled additional hearings.
Burditt told Compass Vermont Sunday night that H.741 is the more specific of two relevant bills, the other being H.529. “If it was up to me we would have continued to work on the bills and advanced them,” he wrote. He confirmed he has not yet been approached by DiSabito about potential next steps but said he is “certainly willing to work with him.”
These people are playing the system like a Stradivarius
That last phrase is Burditt’s, offered in a separate message to Compass Vermont in which he described the Grand Isle case.
DiSabito’s release came with a direct challenge to Zonay’s framing. The defendant in the Grand Isle case, he wrote, “was not an 80-year-old with Alzheimer’s and was not a single mother of three children.” He cited the Vermont Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling in In re Miller — which held that failure to appear is treated “so seriously” because without the accused, “the prosecution could not go forward and the state would be denied its opportunity to seek justice” — and juxtaposed it against a January 2026 Superior Court decision in State v. Gaudette, in which a judge acknowledged a defendant’s court appearance was “critical” but still declined to enforce an unsecured appearance bond for a failure to appear.
Governor Phil Scott has expressed similar frustration, though not in connection with this specific case. “People need to be held accountable for their actions and I don’t think we’ve done that as well as we should,” Scott told WCAX in August 2024. In a separate interview with Vermont Public, he said: “We don’t have an efficient court system because I believe we don’t hold people accountable enough and make sure that they show up in court.”
A threat, and a stalled bill
DiSabito’s press release concludes with an unusual warning. He writes that he is “considering options that may be available to me within the Executive Branch, including partnering with already-identified and agreed-to members of the Legislative Branch, to ensure this ‘epidemic’ is taken seriously and addressed properly by everyone in all three of our branches.”
DiSabito told Compass Vermont he is not coordinating with other state’s attorneys on the issue.
The 2026 Vermont legislative session is moving toward adjournment. H.741 has had one hearing. The committee has taken no further action.
The defendant in the Grand Isle case is on arrest warrant status as of publication. He has 17 failures to appear in Vermont courts.