defense counsel stated that it was “an issue” that the pharmacy manager was not there, no request was made by either attorney for time to subpoena him. Later, when the trial judge was making her ruling on competency, she noted that what she relied on in making her ultimate determination was “the sworn testimony of the transport officers” — testimony that was taken in open court on direct examination by the State with full opportunity for cross-examination by defense counsel. ¶ 34. In evaluating the trial court’s ex parte communications and her reports to counsel on the substance of those discussions, we “presume the integrity and honesty of judges.” State v. Davis, 165 Vt. 240, 249, 683 A.2d 1, 6 (1996); accord, e.g., Luce v. Cushing, 2004 VT 117, ¶ 18, 177 Vt. 600, 868 A.2d 672 (mem.) (<HOLDING>). Further, we grant trial judges enormous
recognizing this presumption recognizing that a strong causal connection is required quotation omitted recognizing that judges are accorded a presumption of honesty and integrity quotation omitted recognizing presumption recognizing a presumption of reasonableness