Therapeutic Jurisp & Sexual Predator Laws - Defense for SVP

n71 Most experts who testify for the government in Washington State do not testify on behalf ofthe defense. Jackson Interview, supra note 37.n72 See Robert C. Boruchowitz, Sexual Predator Law--The Nightmare in the Halls of Justice, 15U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 827 (1992).n73 TJ would be very interested to ascertain if the victims who testify at these commitmenthearings are psychologically benefited or harmed by this experience. Several victims at Mr.Young's trial cried while testifying. Personal observation of Author at Mr. Young's trial.n74 See supra note 61.n75 See supra note 61. In California, as of September 28, 1998, the State had prevailed in 126cases out of 150 in which it sought to commit sex offenders as predators. This is a success rate of84%. As of that date, trials for 74 other offenders were pending. Sex Offender CommitmentProgram, All Cases as of 9/28/98, Calif. Dep't of Mental Health.n76 Prosecutors in Washington State take the position that a jury verdict that is not unanimous is amistrial and that, consequently, the prosecutor may retry the case. There has only been one hungjury in Washington State in an original commitment trial when the jury could not decide whetherto commit the individual or to release him. There have been three hung juries in cases under theold law, which allowed juries to order an offender to be placed in a less restrictive placement atthe original commitment trial. The recently enacted Missouri Sexually Violent Predator lawexplicitly states: "Upon a mistrial, the court shall direct that the person be held at an appropriatesecure facility, including, but not limited to, a county jail, until another trial is conducted." H.B.Nos. 1405, 1109, 1335 (89th Gen. Assembly (Mo. 1998)) (effective Jan. 1, 1999), § 6.n77 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 71.09.060(3) (West Supp. 1999).n78 The Washington law expressly prohibits the state from housing sexual predators in a mentalhealth hospital where other civilly committed patients are maintained. See Wash. Rev. Code Ann.§ 71.09.060(3) (West Supp. 1999). Some states like California house predators in forensicfacilities. These facilities are the most secure facilities in the state system.n79 Personal observation of the author who was one of the first two non-government lawyers tovisit the SCC in Monroe. Numerous television and newspaper reports have also described thesecure conditions at the SCC in Monroe. See, e.g., Ellis E. Conklin, A Prison for Predators, SeattlePost-Intelligencer, Mar. 21, 1991, at C1.n80 Brief for Appellee at Exhibit B, Young v. Weston, No. 95-35958 (9th Cir. 1999)(Memorandum dated June 21, 1990 to Dave Weston (then Superintendent of the SCC) from JeffFreimund, Assistant Attorney General). Assistant Attorney General Freimund wrote, inter alia:"Although it is a close question, the short answer is that, in my opinion, there is lawful authorityfor using deadly force to prevent the escape of sexual predators who have been found by a court tohave committed a violent sexual offense and likely to reoffend."n81 See In re Detention of Richard Garret Turay, No. 91-2-10539-1 (Wash. Super. Ct. Mar. 30,1995) (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order on Respondent's Motion to DismissBased on Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement at the Special Commitment Center).