United States v. Vernon Wood, 741 F.3d 417

Wood, born July 1953, was convicted of multiple offenses including child molestation and firearm possession; his federal prison sentence led to a certification as a sexually dangerous person under 18 U.S.C. § 4248(a).
The district court conducted a civil commitment hearing under the Adam Walsh Act, determining Wood satisfied all three elements by clear and convincing evidence.
A Standing Order governing examiner appointments in the Eastern District of North Carolina restricted ex parte communications with examiners, and set procedures for non-testifying examiners under Rule 26(b)(4)(D).
Wood sought to have substantive ex parte communications with his selected examiner Dr. Saleh; the magistrate and then district court upheld the Standing Order as compliant with the Act.
During the hearing, multiple examiners testified regarding Wood’s mental disorders and risk of reoffending; the district court credited Cunic and Hoberman over Saleh and concluded Wood would have serious difficulty refraining from child molestation if released.
Wood challenged (1) the Standing Order’s propriety, (2) admissibility of certain reports as hearsay, and (3) the adequacy of due process given his access to experts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Standing Order violates due process	Wood contends it deprives ex parte substantive contact with his examiner.	The Order provides fair process with counsel, evidence, and independent decisionmaker.	No due process violation; Standing Order satisfies minimum safeguards.
Whether Wood was denied necessary pretrial/ex parte expert access	improperly restrained access to a pretrial/ex parte expert would hamper defense.	Rule 26(b)(4)(D) non-testifying examiner and existing examiner options suffice for a fair defense.	Due process satisfied; not required to have the same pretrial expert as the testifying one.
Whether the admission of hearsay reports was proper	Reports contain inadmissible hearsay and should not underpin experts’ opinions.	Experts may rely on hearsay under Rule 703 if reasonably relied upon; PSR supports reliability.	No abuse of discretion; reports admissible through Rule 703 and cumulative evidence is harmless.

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979) (due process in civil commitment requires safeguards)
Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (U.S. 1980) (liberty interest in civil commitment; safeguards)
Baker, 45 F.3d 837 (4th Cir. 1995) (civil commitment due process standards; independent decisionmaker)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due process balancing test)
United States v. Timms, 664 F.3d 436 (4th Cir. 2012) (constitutional challenge to federal statute; de novo review)
United States v. Delfino, 510 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2007) (evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion standard)
United States v. Clarke, 2 F.3d 81 (4th Cir. 1993) (harmless error and cumulative evidence; Rule 803(8))
In re Salem, 465 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2006) (gatekeeping in expert testimony; reliability under Rule 702)
Connorton v. Harbor Towing Corp., 352 F.2d 518 (4th Cir. 1965) (appellate deference in evaluating expert testimony)
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979) (see above)