Vermont Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration of Devin Moffitt Murder Case

The Vermont Supreme Court has ordered a trial court to reconsider the dismissal of a murder case against a Bennington man, WCAX reported Friday.

The decision effectively revives the legal proceedings against Devin Moffitt, who faces allegations that he strangled his girlfriend, Jessica Hildenbrandt, in 2019. While Moffitt is currently serving time in federal prison for separate drug and gun convictions, the murder charge remained stalled following a lower court’s decision to throw the case out.

This ruling shifts the momentum of a case that has been caught in a procedural deadlock for years. In a ruling issued on Friday, the state Supreme Court determined that the trial court must re-examine whether dismissing the murder charges was the appropriate legal move.

The legal battle centered on a critical gap in the prosecution’s evidence. According to WCAX, the state admitted just one week before the scheduled trial that it had not yet secured DNA confirmation testing of Hildenbrandt’s remains.

Vermont Supreme Court orders new look at dismissal of murder case — WCAX Channel 3 News

Hildenbrandt’s remains were discovered in a gravel pit in Searsburg later in 2019, the same year authorities say she was strangled. Although Moffitt was officially charged with her murder in 2022, the lack of definitive DNA results led the defense to move for a dismissal of the case.

A trial court initially sided with the defense, accepting the dismissal. However, the state appealed that decision, leading to the Supreme Court’s intervention.

The high court’s mandate requires the trial court to evaluate the circumstances of the missing DNA evidence and decide if the dismissal was warranted under the law. This process highlights the tension between the state’s duty to provide forensic certainty and the defendant’s right to a timely trial.

For the community and the family of Jessica Hildenbrandt, this decision represents a potential path toward a definitive resolution. The case has lingered in a state of limbo, with the primary allegation—strangulation—untested in a courtroom due to the missing forensic links.

Legal analysts often point to such cases to illustrate the high bar required for criminal prosecutions. If the state cannot provide the DNA confirmation that was missing during the initial trial window, the prosecution faces an uphill battle to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conversely, the defense maintains that procedural failures by the state should not result in the loss of a defendant’s liberty. The argument suggests that if the state is not prepared to present its evidence by the time a trial is set, the case should not proceed.

The outcome of this renewed review will likely hinge on whether the state can now produce the necessary DNA testing or if the previous delay constitutes a violation of the defendant’s rights that cannot be undone.

The trial court must now determine if the dismissal of the murder charge against Devin Moffitt was appropriate.

Keep reading