United States v. Wetmore
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24251
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Wetmore, in BOP custody with a projected release date of November 18, 2006, faced a federal civil-commitment notice filed November 17, 2006 under the Adam Walsh Act.
- Wetmore had prior sex-offense convictions: Maine 1981 fondling, Maine 1987 gross sexual misconduct, and a 2000 federal conviction for possession of over 2,000 child-pornography images; sentences were served concurrently with state terms.
- A seven-day bench trial (2010–2011) featured expert testimony from Dr. Prentky (paraphilia NOS, hebephilia) and Dr. Phenix (pedophilia, nonexclusive type) plus other witnesses; the district court ordered commitment.
- Wetmore argued, among other things, that he was not in lawful custody when the commitment petition was filed and that time-credit issues undermined detention validity; the district court rejected these as insufficient to defeat custody.
- On the merits, the court held Wetmore engaged in sexually violent conduct or child molestation, suffered from a mental illness/abnormality, and that, as a result, he would have serious difficulty refraining from molestation if released, supporting civil commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Wetmore in BOP custody when the commitment notice filed? | Wetmore contends he lacked lawful custody on filing date. | Government contends Wetmore was in custody, satisfying §4248(a). | Yes; Wetmore remained in custody at filing, satisfying custody requirement. |
| Did Wetmore prove the mental-illness element by clear and convincing evidence? | Disagrees with Dr. Prentky’s paraphilia diagnosis as mental illness. | Experts supported a mental-illness finding (paraphilia NOS/hebephilia or pedophilia). | Yes; substantial expert evidence supported a mental-illness finding. |
| Was Wetmore properly found to be currently dangerous to others if released? | Evidence supports risk of reoffending and substantial risk factors. | Treatment/supervision could mitigate risk; present dangerousness remains. | Yes; courts upheld present dangerousness based on comprehensive risk factors and predictions. |
| Are credits and sentence-dating issues dispositive to the commitment outcome? | Credit timing and double-credit concerns undermine detention. | Credits were properly applied; no cognizable error to defeat custody. | No reversible error; credits did not undermine custody or the commitment order. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) (constitutional basis for federal civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons)
- United States v. Shields, 649 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (de minimis timing errors in commitment-initiation not a basis to release)
- United States v. Carta, 592 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010) (DSM-based mental-illness framing for paraphilia in Adam Walsh proceedings)
- United States v. Joshua, 607 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2010) (physical custody alone is not sufficient for custody status in some contexts)
- United States v. Hernandez-Arenado, 571 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2009) (custody-related questions in commitment proceedings with statutory framework)
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) (no double credit for detention time; statutory interpretation guiding credits)
- United States v. Mills, 501 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2007) (support for non-double-credit interpretation under §3585(b))
- United States v. Dennis, 926 F.2d 768 (8th Cir. 1991) (predecessor considerations on concurrent sentencing and credits)
- United States v. Labeille-Soto, 163 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 1998) (concurrency principles and sentencing-start-date mechanics)