United States v. Hall
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 380
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Government certified Hall as a "sexually dangerous person" under 18 U.S.C. § 4248, stay on release pending hearing.
- Hall had prior molestation offenses (1989 Maine; 1999 New York) and a federal child-pornography conviction; he underwent treatment.
- Hall was under federal supervision with stringent conditions; in 2009 BOP certification triggered an evidentiary hearing.
- Three psychologists evaluated Hall; two (Arnold, Demby) found serious difficulty refraining; one (Rosell) found no such difficulty.
- District court credited Rosell and found no clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness; Fourth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government proved three §4248 elements by clear and convincing evidence | Hall (government) argues the district court erred by not applying a higher burden | Hall contends the court properly weighed evidence and found no serious difficulty refraining | Yes; court affirmed district court's findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether expert testimony supported a finding of dangerousness | Arnold/Demby provided dangerousness opinions based on actuarials | Rosell provided not-dangerousness view with differing interpretation | Yes; court credited Rosell as most well-reasoned and persuasive |
| Whether the district court properly weighed “serious difficulty” standard under Crane/Hendricks | District court allegedly demanded insurmountable impairment | Standard is serious difficulty, not insurmountable | Yes; district court did not err in applying the proper standard |
| Whether the district court's credibility determinations were clearly erroneous | Government challenges Hall's credibility and treatment history | Court reasonably credited Hall's credibility and sentencing context | Yes; findings were not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 357 (1997) (limits on involuntary confinement to volitional impairment cases)
- Crane v. United States, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (civil commitment will normally involve difficulty controlling behavior)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (clear and convincing standard is intermediate)
- United States v. Comstock, 627 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2010) (context of § 4248 and related detention issues)
- United States v. Shields, 649 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (credibility of expert testimony is for the factfinder)
- Jimenez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 269 F.3d 439 (4th Cir. 2001) (definition of clear and convincing)
- United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (clear error standard for reviewing fact findings)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (standard for appellate review of factual findings)