United States v. Jon Thompson
687 F. App'x 331
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jon Thompson was civilly committed under the Adam Walsh Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4248, after a district court hearing found him a "sexually dangerous person."
- The government must prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) past sexually violent conduct or child molestation, (2) a serious mental illness/abnormality/disorder, and (3) serious difficulty refraining from sexual violence if released.
- Thompson had multiple convictions for sexual conduct with minors; he did not dispute that he engaged in sexually violent behavior.
- Four forensic experts agreed Thompson suffers from pedophilic disorder and testified he would have serious difficulty refraining from sexual offending if released.
- The district court committed Thompson to the custody of the Attorney General; Thompson appealed, raising sufficiency of evidence for the third criterion and a due process challenge to provisions of the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompson would have serious difficulty refraining from sexual violence if released (third §4248 criterion) | Thompson argued the court clearly erred in finding he posed such a risk | Government relied on four experts who concluded Thompson's pedophilic disorder made refraining unlikely | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported the district court's finding |
| Whether certain provisions of the Act violate due process | Thompson raised a constitutional due process challenge on appeal | Government defended the statute; argued procedural default/waiver below | Court declined to address due process claim because it was not raised below and no exceptional circumstances existed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Comstock, 627 F.3d 513 (4th Cir.) (describing § 4248 elements)
- United States v. Antone, 742 F.3d 151 (4th Cir.) (explaining clear and convincing standard application)
- United States v. Wooden, 693 F.3d 440 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for § 4248 factual findings)
- United States v. Springer, 715 F.3d 535 (4th Cir.) (when appellate court may set aside district factual findings)
- Williams v. Prof’l Transp. Inc., 294 F.3d 607 (4th Cir.) (declining to consider issues not raised below)