Background
In 2022, Vermont’s Department for Children and Families opened an investigation into Shylo Bourdeau’s minor children. Bourdeau repeatedly refused to cooperate, ignoring phone calls, refusing to answer the door, and not responding to letters. The family court issued a pick-up order directing law enforcement to bring the children to the courthouse. Over the following months, officers made multiple attempts to serve Bourdeau with the order; each time they were met by Bourdeau’s boyfriend, who was visibly armed with a revolver and told officers they were trespassing.
In August 2022, an officer arranged to meet the children’s grandmother and escort her and the children to the courthouse. When the grandmother arrived outside the courthouse, Bourdeau and her armed boyfriend appeared. The children ran toward Bourdeau’s vehicle. After the officer told Bourdeau she could not leave because he had a court order, Bourdeau drove off with the children. The encounter was recorded on the officer’s body camera, and the video was admitted at trial. Bourdeau testified she was unaware of any court proceedings and left because of prior bad experiences with law enforcement.
Bourdeau was charged with obstruction of justice and impeding a public officer under 13 V.S.A. §§ 3015 and 3001. She represented herself at the jury trial, with standby counsel available. The jury convicted her on both counts. She appealed pro se, raising claims of judicial bias, evidentiary error, denial of counsel, and reliance on inapplicable civil procedural provisions.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed both convictions. On the bias claim, the court found that Bourdeau provided no record citations supporting her assertion that the trial judge called her a “sovereign citizen,” and that a review of the trial transcript revealed no such statement. The court further noted that adverse evidentiary rulings, standing alone, do not establish judicial bias under Vermont precedent. The recusal motion had been denied by the Chief Superior Judge, who found no showing of bias sufficient to overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality.
On the evidentiary challenge, the court held that the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding evidence of the outcome of the juvenile proceeding. Applying the collateral bar rule — which prohibits a party from challenging the validity of a court order by violating it — the court explained that the disposition of the family court case was irrelevant to whether Bourdeau was obligated to comply with the pick-up order at the time she drove away with the children.
The court declined to address Bourdeau’s ineffective-assistance claim regarding standby counsel because she failed to identify specific deficient conduct and did not demonstrate the claim was preserved below. The court similarly declined to address her argument invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6) and the Uniform Commercial Code, as those provisions are inapplicable in a state criminal proceeding and the argument was too inadequately briefed to meet the minimum standards of Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a).
Key Takeaways
- Adverse rulings by a trial judge do not, without more, establish judicial bias sufficient to require recusal under Vermont law.
- Vermont’s collateral bar rule bars a criminal defendant from challenging the validity of a court order as a defense to charges arising from violating that order — the outcome of the underlying family court proceeding was therefore irrelevant to guilt.
- Pro se appellants are held to the briefing requirements of V.R.A.P. 28(a); arguments unsupported by record citations or adequate legal authority will not be addressed on appeal.
- Standby counsel does not constitute hybrid representation, and an ineffective-assistance claim based on standby counsel’s conduct must be specifically identified and preserved below to be reviewable.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the collateral bar rule as a significant limitation on criminal defendants who defy family court orders: the wisdom or fairness of the underlying order is not a triable issue in the obstruction prosecution that follows. Defense counsel in analogous situations must seek to challenge or stay the order through proper legal channels rather than advise non-compliance.
The case also serves as a practical reminder of appellate briefing standards for pro se litigants. The court’s refusal to entertain arguments grounded in inapplicable federal civil rules and the UCC — hallmarks of “sovereign citizen” litigation tactics — illustrates that Vermont courts will not engage with legally incoherent frameworks, regardless of whether the defendant is represented by counsel.