United States v. Kevin Shea
989 F.3d 271
4th Cir.2021Background
- Kevin Shea, with a decades-long history of hands-on sexual offenses (100+ known victims) and a 2000 child-pornography conviction, was civilly committed by consent under the Adam Walsh Act in 2015 and treated at FCI Butner, where he progressed to the final treatment phase.
- In 2019 Shea moved for discharge under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h). The Butner Warden filed a § 4248(e) certificate recommending conditional release under a prescribed regimen and submitted 38 proposed conditions (sex-offender group/individual treatment, GPS monitoring, no contact with minors, limits on internet access, no firearms, financial reporting, etc.).
- At the discharge hearing Shea did not contest the substance of the proposed conditions, agreed he would follow them, and even proposed them as an alternative; he presented two experts (Drs. Malinek and Plaud) who opined he no longer suffered a serious mental disorder and could be released unconditionally.
- The government presented two experts (Drs. Barnette and Smithson) who diagnosed persisting pedophilic and paraphilic disorders and identified dynamic risk factors (boundary-pushing, poor adult relationships, sexual arousal to youthful males) that made structured conditions necessary.
- The district court credited the government experts, found Shea would remain sexually dangerous absent a prescribed regimen, imposed the government’s conditions (adding a prohibition on all pornography), and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Shea’s factual and procedural challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shea remains a "sexually dangerous person" absent conditions (elements 2–3 under 18 U.S.C. § 4247) | Shea: He no longer suffers a serious mental disorder and would not have "serious difficulty" refraining from reoffense given age, long time since hands-on offense, treatment gains, and expert testimony. | Government: Experts and history show persisting pedophilic/other paraphilic disorders and dynamic risk factors; structured conditions are needed to prevent relapse. | Affirmed — court credited government experts; finding that Shea still has serious disorders and would have difficulty refraining without conditions was not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain why each condition was imposed and how they form a prescribed regimen | Shea: Court’s silence prevents appellate review of each condition’s appropriateness; district court should articulate reasons akin to supervised-release practice. | Government: Shea waived or invited review by proposing and not objecting to the conditions at hearing. | Waived/invited error — issue unreviewable; Shea previously proposed/accepted conditions, so court’s lack of separate explanation is not reversible error. |
| Standard of review for weighing competing expert testimony | Shea: Court misweighed experts in favor of government experts (asserted). | Government: Appellate review is deferential; district court has gatekeeping and discretion to weigh credibility and plausibility of expert opinions. | Affirmed standard: admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion; weight/credibility decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion and factual findings for clear error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wooden, 887 F.3d 591 (4th Cir. 2018) (approving deference where district court credibly favored one expert over another in Adam Walsh Act context)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (appellate courts must not set aside factfinding unless clearly erroneous)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)
- United States v. Caporale, 701 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 2012) (expert opinion weight may be undermined if contradicted by extrinsic evidence)
- Underwood v. Elkay Mining, Inc., 105 F.3d 946 (4th Cir. 1997) (factors a factfinder should consider when weighing expert opinions)
- United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456 (4th Cir. 2012) (discussing appellate review and clear-error standard for factual findings)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture and explaining consequences of waiver)