On Tuesday, a case that has been than two years in the making against a Vermont State Trooper was dismissed minutes before a jury trial was set to begin. Robert Zink’s trial was scheduled to start on May 23rd. He was facing a simple assault charge from 2021 due to an alleged excessive use of force during an arrest. “It’s a huge relief. He was facing a possible conviction,” said David Sleigh, Zink’s defense attorney.Minutes after the dismissal, Zink was hugging loved ones in the courtroom.”I would’ve loved to get a not guilty verdict,” said Sleigh.Vermont State Police said Zink allegedly struck a handcuffed man who was on the ground during a suspected drunken driving arrest in Shaftsbury on Feb. 23, 2021.However, the state’s attorney’s office did not have a document for the use of force report until this past Friday. The report was sent to Sleigh Friday afternoon.Sleigh said he didn’t have time to fully examine the report, due to redactions, or to be completely prepared for Tuesday’s trial.”Friday at 3:39 p.m., I get the use of force reports, and not even entire ones,” said Sleigh. “Pages and pages are redacted.” The judge said that while she doesn’t believe the state’s attorney’s office had any ill will in the late filing, the report should have been found and made available sooner as it is a public document.The prosecution told the court they had just gotten it on Friday.But now, the judge says there’s not enough time to go through everything that’s in it – and it wouldn’t be fair to move forward.She added that delaying a trial would further persecute Zink as he has been unable to work since the investigation began and was placed on unpaid administrative leave.Sleigh said going forward, his client wants to get back to work. “It’s not the end of the line for him,” asked Sleigh. “It’s almost the beginning of the road again after being on the sidelines for two years.”Zink was hired by state police in 2008 and plans to try to be reinstated.Attorney General Charity Clark’s Office issued the following comment on Tuesday regarding the dismissal:“We are disappointed with today’s outcome. It is troubling that discovery documents—which were requested more than once by the Attorney General’s Office, and their existence denied by Vermont State Police—were ultimately produced by Vermont State Police days before trial. My office will be working with Vermont State Police to determine how and why they failed to timely produce discovery documents in this case and how this situation can be prevented in the future to ensure that justice may be served.” The Vermont State Police also issued a response to Charity Clark’s statement, saying that they refute Clark’s assertion that VSP denied the existence of use-of-force reports, and that the documents were made available as far back as June 2021.The statement reads, in part: “The state police acknowledges that investigators incorrectly stated that the reports were confidential internal affairs materials. However, it falls squarely upon the prosecution to determine what materials are discoverable in a case, and to disclose to defense counsel the existence of any potentially relevant information. The Department of Public Safety and the state police continue to be willing to work with the Attorney General to conduct a full review of this matter to identify what happened and to ensure situations like this do not arise again.”
On Tuesday, a case that has been than two years in the making against a Vermont State Trooper was dismissed minutes before a jury trial was set to begin.
Robert Zink’s trial was scheduled to start on May 23rd. He was facing a simple assault charge from 2021 due to an alleged excessive use of force during an arrest.
Advertisement
“It’s a huge relief. He was facing a possible conviction,” said David Sleigh, Zink’s defense attorney.
Minutes after the dismissal, Zink was hugging loved ones in the courtroom.
“I would’ve loved to get a not guilty verdict,” said Sleigh.
Vermont State Police said Zink allegedly struck a handcuffed man who was on the ground during a suspected drunken driving arrest in Shaftsbury on Feb. 23, 2021.
However, the state’s attorney’s office did not have a document for the use of force report until this past Friday. The report was sent to Sleigh Friday afternoon.
Sleigh said he didn’t have time to fully examine the report, due to redactions, or to be completely prepared for Tuesday’s trial.
“Friday at 3:39 p.m., I get the use of force reports, and not even entire ones,” said Sleigh. “Pages and pages are redacted.”
The judge said that while she doesn’t believe the state’s attorney’s office had any ill will in the late filing, the report should have been found and made available sooner as it is a public document.
The prosecution told the court they had just gotten it on Friday.
But now, the judge says there’s not enough time to go through everything that’s in it – and it wouldn’t be fair to move forward.
She added that delaying a trial would further persecute Zink as he has been unable to work since the investigation began and was placed on unpaid administrative leave.
Sleigh said going forward, his client wants to get back to work.
“It’s not the end of the line for him,” asked Sleigh. “It’s almost the beginning of the road again after being on the sidelines for two years.”
Zink was hired by state police in 2008 and plans to try to be reinstated.
Attorney General Charity Clark’s Office issued the following comment on Tuesday regarding the dismissal:
“We are disappointed with today’s outcome. It is troubling that discovery documents—which were requested more than once by the Attorney General’s Office, and their existence denied by Vermont State Police—were ultimately produced by Vermont State Police days before trial.
My office will be working with Vermont State Police to determine how and why they failed to timely produce discovery documents in this case and how this situation can be prevented in the future to ensure that justice may be served.”
The Vermont State Police also issued a response to Charity Clark’s statement, saying that they refute Clark’s assertion that VSP denied the existence of use-of-force reports, and that the documents were made available as far back as June 2021.
The statement reads, in part:
“The state police acknowledges that investigators incorrectly stated that the reports were confidential internal affairs materials. However, it falls squarely upon the prosecution to determine what materials are discoverable in a case, and to disclose to defense counsel the existence of any potentially relevant information.
The Department of Public Safety and the state police continue to be willing to work with the Attorney General to conduct a full review of this matter to identify what happened and to ensure situations like this do not arise again.”
