United States v. Thomas Blackledge
714 F. App'x 247
| 4th Cir. | 2018Background
- Thomas Blackledge, age 71, was subject to a civil commitment proceeding under the Adam Walsh Act after prior convictions for sexually-motivated murder and child pornography; he stipulated to prior conduct and to having a pedophilic disorder.
- The sole disputed issue at trial was the volitional-control prong: whether, due to his mental disorder, Blackledge would have serious difficulty refraining from sexual violence or child molestation if released.
- Government experts (Drs. North and Zinik) testified that Blackledge continued to have child-focused sexual fantasies, problematic beliefs, and intact sexual functioning, making him likely to reoffend despite advanced age. One government expert acknowledged low general recidivism rates for offenders over 70 but concluded Blackledge was an exception.
- Defense expert (Dr. Wood) emphasized that recidivism for offenders over 70 is very rare and opined that actuarial tools are insufficient for predicting recidivism in this age group; he further stated opinions for or against volitional impairment were scientifically indefensible.
- The district court credited the Government experts over Dr. Wood, relying on their more thorough analyses (and precertification reports), and found by clear and convincing evidence that Blackledge satisfied the volitional-control prong and was sexually dangerous.
- On appeal Blackledge challenged (1) the court’s credibility findings favoring Government experts, (2) reliance on an unadmitted study referenced by an expert, and (3) an Ex Post Facto claim; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether volitional-control satisfied given Blackledge’s age | Blackledge: age and rarity of recidivism over 70 make prediction unreliable; Dr. Wood’s testimony undermines risk finding | Government: Blackledge’s continuing fantasies, arousal, history, and lack of self-control overcome age-based statistical reduction | Court: Affirmed — credited Government experts; age did not overcome evidence of persistent risk |
| Weight of prior criminal history | Blackledge: court over-relied on past crimes to infer future risk | Government: past offenses are a critical part of volitional inquiry | Court: Consideration of criminal history appropriate; deference to district court’s credibility/weight determinations |
| Use of an inadmissible study cited by an expert | Blackledge: court improperly relied on a study not admitted into evidence | Government: expert may base opinion on inadmissible sources under Fed. R. Evid. 703; court merely noted the study as part of an expert’s foundation | Court: No error — court used study only to explain expert’s basis, not as independent evidence |
| Ex Post Facto challenge to civil commitment | Blackledge: commitment violates Ex Post Facto Clause | Government: Timms forecloses challenge | Court: Rejected — challenge foreclosed by precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wooden, 693 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2012) (age-recency of fantasies may not negate continued risk; deference to district court credibility findings)
- United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard of review: factual findings for clear error; credibility determinations warrant greater deference)
- United States v. Springer, 715 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2013) (elements required for civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Act)
- United States v. Timms, 664 F.3d 436 (4th Cir. 2012) (rejecting Ex Post Facto challenge to civil commitment under Adam Walsh Act)
- United States v. Wood, 741 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2013) (experts may rely on inadmissible evidence in forming opinions under Rule 703)