Jamie Wool v. Douglas Cavett, 2015-384

Background

Plaintiff sued Douglas Cavett in 2012, alleging sexual abuse beginning when plaintiff was ten; Cavett had pleaded no contest in 2010 to aggravated sexual assault.
Multiple defendants (school, Cavett’s parents) were originally named but dismissed before trial; only Cavett proceeded to jury trial.
Cavett represented himself at trial; plaintiff had counsel. Jury awarded $1,000,000 in damages.
Pretrial dispute over release of plaintiff’s Department of Corrections (DOC) records: court ordered release to attorneys under protective order but declined to release them directly to Cavett due to concerns about his compliance.
Cavett sought gratis trial transcripts for appeal; the Court denied a full four-day transcript request as consuming the pro bono budget and deemed the record complete when Cavett did not narrow the request.
On appeal Cavett raised claims about lack of appointed counsel, discovery limitations, evidentiary rulings, shackling during jury draw, and other procedural errors; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to appointed counsel in civil trial	Not applicable (civil case)	Cavett argued trial was unfair because he had no lawyer while plaintiff did	No constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in this civil case; no error
Access to plaintiff’s DOC records	Records relevant to damages and released to counsel under protective order	Cavett argued denial of direct access (he was pro se) was unfair and prejudicial	Court allowed release to counsel under protective order; denial to Cavett personally was not error given concerns about compliance and lack of request
Availability of trial transcript for appeal	N/A	Cavett argued full transcript necessary to review trial errors	Cavett failed to narrow transcript request; by not ordering transcript he waived issues that require it; record deemed complete
Discovery and deposition attendance	Plaintiff contends discovery was adequate and extended as needed	Cavett said prison rules and lost legal materials hindered discovery and attendance at depositions	Court found no demonstrated prejudice; DOC rules not ordered to be changed and discovery extensions were granted; no reversible error shown
Evidentiary rulings and proffered testimony	Plaintiff complied with required disclosures and presented damages evidence	Cavett claimed exclusion of evidence and that he should have testified as an expert	Court could not review these trial-errors on appeal without transcript; issues waived for lack of record
Shackling before jury pool	N/A	Cavett argued appearing shackled biased the jury and denied due process	Court noted restraints may raise due process concerns but could not review claim without transcript showing objection or rationale; no reversible error shown

Key Cases Cited

Russell v. Armitage, 166 Vt. 392 (1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases except where statute provides)
In re Chapman, 155 Vt. 163 (1990) (statutory control of counsel appointment in civil proceedings that may result in incarceration)
Ferguson v. Dunstan, 143 Vt. 316 (1983) (party asserting prejudice from discovery restrictions must show how proceedings were harmed)
State v. Gadreault, 171 Vt. 534 (2000) (failure to order transcript waives right to raise issues requiring it on appeal)
State v. Bruno, 192 Vt. 515 (2012) (physical restraints may undermine fairness of trial)
Sides v. Cherry, 609 F.3d 576 (3d Cir. 2010) (civil trials: restraints permissible only when necessary for safety or security)