United States v. Shields
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16540
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Shields was convicted in 2002 for possession of child pornography and faced Walsh Act civil commitment in 2006 after near-release; ten-day trial with advisory jury; court found him sexually dangerous and ordered commitment.
- Walsh Act § 4248 requires a petition from the Attorney General/BOP certifying a respondent as sexually dangerous, with a full evidentiary hearing and clear-and-convincing proof of three elements.
- Three experts (court-appointed and two retained) and Shields's own psychologist testified that Shields suffers from pedophilia; actuarial tools with dynamic factors informed risk assessment.
- The district court weighed actuarial scores against dynamic factors (age, treatment history, ongoing deviant behavior) and concluded Shields would have serious difficulty refraining if released.
- Shields challenged (i) custody timing and (ii) the sufficiency of evidence; the court rejected his challenges and granted the commitment.
- On appeal, the First Circuit upheld the district court, noting timing de minimis error, non-jurisdictional custody issue, and the district court’s fact-finding supporting dangerousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Walsh Act survive constitutional challenge? | Shields argues Walsh Act exceeds Congress's authority and violates due process. | USA contends Walsh Act is constitutionally valid under Necessary and Proper Clause and due process standards. | Constitutional challenges foreclosed; Walsh Act valid. |
| Was Shields in custody when petition filed, making the commitment proper? | Shields contends miscalculation meant he was not in custody; petition should be dismissed. | USA argues de minimis custody defect does not require dismissal and timing is non-jurisdictional. | De minimis custody error did not require dismissal; custody not jurisdictional. |
| Did the district court err in finding Shields would have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct if released? | Shields argues evidence does not show future risk given age and treatment history. | USA contends dynamic factors and expert testimony support risk and dangerousness. | District court’s finding of serious difficulty refraining was supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carta, 592 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010) (upholds Walsh Act terms as sufficiently explicit; vagueness challenge rejected)
- United States v. Volungus, 595 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (recognizes constitutionality of Walsh Act under Necessary and Proper Clause)
- United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) (upholds federal government’s civil commitment authority over sexually dangerous persons)
- United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711 (1990) (de minimis procedural violations do not automatically negate government interests)
- Board of Trustees v. Alabama, 533 U.S. 146 (2001) (antishuttling provisions discussed in context of timing and remedies)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (limits on what constitutes jurisdictional elements in statutes)
- United States v. Shelton, 490 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2007) (defers to district court’s weighing of expert testimony and dynamic factors)