is in principle there protect the citizens of the illinois from those that we have deemed so dangerous that they can no longer remain in the rest of society but the provisions specifically section sixty five for discharge in the end or examination of those detained are there to protect the individuals in state custody from a mall or unnecessary in perspiration under the acting these are entitled to a full trial and destruction so long as they can show some possible evidence that they no longer relates to what the section sixty five corrected in specifically the issue of probable cause right but there's two methods to get there one of them would be a conditional release is that you are ascribing the right that you're not seeking anything under that to curb urges and control behavior and it is such that if an individual no longer has mental disorders defined by the act that means that they have polish and control over their abilities and no longer give in to the compulsion  violence link in the scientific or rather psychiatric psychological expert community would it be fair to say that mental disorders don't simply go away that actually  specified even dr weil the state's expert has testified that the issue of treatment is really more an issue of learning to control one's behavior not necessarily a matter of administering a medication or even a removed would be that helpful given that the basis of her opinion continued to be thirty year old criminal behavior thirty five year old criminal behavior now and the very little of her opinion was based on moving forward with with mr lieberman and and it was dr its conclusion based not only on his examination but also it ministration of several new second metric tests which had never been considered by the jury never been considered by your honour's or any other court in illinois through the administration of those tests  doctor it was was able to determine that mr lieberman had no present extant signs or symptoms of any paraphiliac disorder any anti social personality disorder mr lieberman and several of personality tests that are designed specifically to measure tested were completely different then w suffered from a mental disorder was it because of the evidence of the test did he say that what if he opined as far as the reason that he believed mr lieberman no longer suffered that he had any of those fantas suffered from any of these fantasies not that i'm aware of but they're separate his opinion was based on more than simply just asking yes i agree i understand i know there's more than what i asked you i just wondered if there were some there were questions specifically directed toward him now let me ask you is there a component to the sixty five section detention that requires so you're saying that under the statutes there is no requirement that the petitioner establish not only that he no longer suffers from a mental disorder but there's no further requirement that c there's no no requirement that so ever under sixty five that there be evidence it would suggest for purposes of hearing if the responded will not yes those are alternative paths to the same and which is was their testimony at the hearing that even dr reply conceded or maybe it came from some of his tests that there was an between eighteen and forty eight percent chance that mr lieberman would weil's examinations over the years whether she performed the test herself or relied on previous tasks typically mr lieberman on state perform tests work above seventy percent for example as a likelihood of the passage of time is that a is that something that's considered acceptable or accepted in the scientific for psychiatric psychological community or with respect or neither the state  nor doctor written or mr lieberman would agree with that statement dr weil the state's expert testified that the disorder itself is not quote go away but rather can be control and it is the good treatment that at the facility whe is in truth based on two new pieces of information one is he's an illinois so i'm being qualified evaluator who administer a new series of tests so that the sense of the test is in a box one and box and whether or not they have the ability to control anti social behavior whether or not they have the ability for violent or unacceptable behavior and whether or not they can be helped other to indulge in an urge or fantasy or desire or cannot  yes and even dr rigel would agree that with the instance of piano lessons his medication is not the issue it is a matter of learning skills to be directed towards control feel that he could do this without mental health treatment as opinion is that mr lieberman has no present signs or symptoms of this month sort but i would think if you watch this court to be able to over but that's just my personal opinion i understood your honor's several of mr they were his appeals in the past have dealt with whether or not mr lieberman would be either incriminating himself or insists on going back to this idea that responded it's other life experiences totally unrelated to a mental disorder my question was does is opinion lose this notion of some plausible opinion because of his opining in this other regard individual with paraphilia not otherwise specified and has recommended and of individuals and i'm sure knows the difference between i mean the value of an individual statement that i don't have a disease is and whether or not that person  and if you look at the language for sexual sadism versus the language that was previously used for paraphilia not otherwise testified is there any verbiage or words or anything that would actually distinguish those two yes the diagnostic are the one thing this is the vibe issue in front of the trial court still going on in front of judge order based on the twenty thirteen dr why the report is mr as the applicants up ok so what you're five did dr lytle opine what his mental disorder is that he suffers from the appeal that the substance of today's thank you good morning again your honor sinister question it please the court again my name is david a switch i'm with the only way to any general's office on behalf of the people that could just step back a few moments in response to just this race concern about the nature of the tests th lieberman's petition for discharge mr lieberman argues that much of the data that it was there and presented to judge order was in fact new the closer examination however reveals that it was not many of the same conclusions that dr written a right that were rejected previous proceedings and to the extent that there was any quote new test or new examination employed in this case that wouldn't pass muster understand bridge in stanbridge which was a consolidated case with two respondents mr lieberman the respondent stanbridge argued that the new second metric exam one risk the static two thousand and two are which did not which was not employed at his original trial  resulted at a new reading some new metrics and new data with respect to his risk of refence based upon some new considerations with his age and the supreme court rejected that roundly acknowledging that even though it was a new test never having been employed it rested primarily on the same factual basis that the old static ninety nine test that had been applied to trial the result that that test came in at back at the original  noted that not only was the result from that test premised on mostly the same factual basis namely the respondents age but it also noted perhaps more significantly that the test but what exactly did the test score on the static ninety nine are in this case show it showed that mr lieberman stored at a seven and a seven if you look at the static ninety nine are scoring sheet the scoring of that stops at six six and above is in the high risk so not only did this test static ninety nine are using that as an example of results in the same test score that we already had from the original trial which was employed by dr bach static ninety nine but it also was depended on the same factual basis for lack of better word all the respondents here opposing counsel said that that score was within a normal range that's to this whole proceeding regarding zero eight some sort of mental disorder and the third which i think your honor is referring to is that you have to show that there is not a substantial likelihood of defense if released into the community but this is the doctor's opinion at this point that he no longer suffers from  can we don't i don't know that i understand bridge were supposed to be you know going any further than that i don't know that the trial judge or this panel should be going any further to look into what this probable cause hearing no because the basis of that opinion has to come in to what has to comply with the rules that were constrained bridge which is it can't be based on old news it can't be based on old data can't be based on old opinions existence at the time of his trial yet the only supreme court said that this wasn't good enough for purposes of probable cause because it didn't provide remarkably different results and it was based upon the same based upon the same facts that actuarial test was based one of them i believe the silas tested his reading comprehension all right one of them the m c s d s the marlowe crown social desirability scale tested his ability to answer questions on tests and socially desirable ways i'm not even sure what that means all right norton doctorate his explanation provided real no no guidance on that two of the test results the p a i personality assessment inventory and the m c i mind milling clinical to axial those are personality types and in his deposition and in this report that to repeat absolutely no mention of these tests within the context of a mental disorder per philia the only opined these tests might even use possibly suggest the absence of an antisocial personality disorder so there not it's a new test but dr schmidt at a previous post the commitment hearing which was unsuccessful that's the one that went up and comprised half of the steam bridge case opined that this responded did not exhibit  characteristics of impulsivity which might be a characteristic of a characteristic of somebody suffering from paraphilia and dr richmond never testified that the lack of impulsivity standing alone would render anybody not sexually violent he simply said that in this case it would indicate that the paraphilia it would it would i guess undermine the perfect diagnosis the last one is the iowa camp and pass that test measures what is called executive functioning in decision making  to believe that that has come out and in this case in previous in previous appeals that's similar to the gaffer global assessment the functioning test which dr schmidt employed back in two thousand  applying that under the static ninety nine the percentages were very similar maybe perhaps two or three points above the high point low point but that is considered a high score and just a for the record that that doesn't  i think what he did is he did he this is a seven it's no one can deny that this is a high score but then a lot of these other metrics he he employed to which are called dynamic risk factors which apart from the strip actuarial  provide the examiner with a maybe a more thorough a thorough review of the respondents condition and  patricks that he used to been previously that have been debunked and rejected now are it in our view a change in condition has to be something more than simply sitting down giving self administer tests and coming back with a result and calling that probable cause this respondent has never been in treatment he refuses to acknowledge there's anything wrong with him in the first place going starting there's a five phase treatment t f that's available for this and all respondents starting treatment acknowledging that you have a problem they have one point or a sexually violent person that they could that they could no longer suffer from the disorder without any kind of treatment treatment is but one thing or another what are some of the other back ups you perhaps perhaps a physical disability ok perhaps a mental incapacity perhaps physical physical or mental incapacity which would r problem with this responded well didn't he use the test as a basis for his opinion that he just doesn't he no longer suffers from this disorder yes but understand bridge those tests are in consequential so you feel th basis yes you're on the other the other way around or that a person might show probable cause in this comes from scene pretty well there were three there's three it's hard the other one is perhaps that there's a change in the meaning of sexually by perhaps the statue of the it's in effect to see this work will go on with so just if the general assembly had decided to amend the statute to another element for instance if it decided to say that if you decided that we want to add a fourth element a person  sexually violent if the diagnosis that leads to his commitment is made within x number of years after he committed his last ride that would be something that would obviously trigger probable cause for a new perk everybody into to go because that element didn't exist when they went i n and then the third way is to show that there's been a change in methodology in the change in methodology we submit would take more than that in new test or a test that rehashes of the results would have to be something more comprehensive  diagnostic in nature not something that measures ancillary matters such as impulsivity or executive functioning or risk aversion those kinds of things we don't know if this test is now it might not exist might exist some point down the road  as methodology concerned but that's a more global concern in our view that doesn't it does not come into the gamut of this let me ask you this indicate that any one of those tests that he conducted was something new in terms of methodology that was recognized in the psychiatric and psychological community that test whether or not someone still is a sexually violent person no he never testified that this constituted a new and new methodology in the scientific community for testing in these kinds of cases he simply said they were new tests and that's what the respondents as well he tries to she didn't and she didn't employ those tests either to extend she didn't know those tests we don't think that's relevant at the probable cause stage that might be something of this case doesn't forge with hearing that might be a point of cross examination but right now hurt her report standing on its own is juvenile history is the way illegal acts within the department of corrections his refusal to participate treatment was a very big factor in her decision that you remain sexually violent so it's not true to say that he she only relied on his prior criminal behavior but that's not to say however that that standing alone wouldn't be enough his prior criminal behavior dates to the late seventy's early eighty's and the respondent complains that that's too far of a gap  write an accurate diagnosis but hendrickson our own supreme court and samuelson say that it's perfectly acceptable for an expert to rely on prior criminal behavior to write a current diagnosis and that's what she did write that  believe in the mid ninety's was relying on criminal behavior exhibited by the respondent hendricks from as far back as the mid one nine hundred fifty s and into the sixty's and then later so that point should be rejected as well if the court has no furthe for a jury that is not an issue for whether or not mr lieberman has met this threshold requirement of of a plausible account that of whether or not he is a sexually violent person of whether or not no longer suffers from the mental disorder of which for which he was originally convicted by a jury it doesn't so it's strictly your position is it strictly we're only looking at whether or not he suffers from a mental disorder there is no component regarding the statutory umbrella and if you insist to focus in on only enough any of the tests that would support your position for this here what would you tell us to direct our attention to i would direct the course of two things first of all there are two well off last one to be evaluated is what the difference of professional opinion expert opinion as to whether house liberman has this disorder there's different evidence that supports those conclusions and different weight that's been given to those pieces of evidence those to be excepted by the court and one of the opinions here is whether he'll be a repeat of ben i don't see any basis even with your expert that would show that he won't be a repeat of the basis for mr lieberman's commitment and the removal of his liberty is that he suffers from a mental disorder that will make him a repeat offender we typically do not keep defeat explained gulf how that could be his opinion based on you know the history that we see how we look back at all that the opinions regarding this particular case did he explain to the  how he how would he explain that but other than his statement that he didn't think he ever suffered from it let's try to put that aside i worked out ok and i'm happy to do that i'm willing to do that i'm trying to get to what is the crux of how he got to this point where he can say he doesn't suffer from this just sort because he took some tests he conducted the tests and that the doctor to be able to get more sleep that generally be can't you tell me you're very much involved in this case what are the kinds of things that would indicate to the doctor that there's ongoing fantasy so either certainly one of the psychopathy and i just if you could just tell me of all those tests now which one or ones do you think best supports dr rippy his opinion that he doesn't suffer from this of all the tests including their consistency which is that there were no outliers in the exam is one of those tests designed to determine executive function yes it is one of those designed to detect impulsivity ok now say this is incarcerated for fifteen years based on a diagnosis of paraffin out of us by continues in this day to be simply detain the basis for that is the diagnosis of this disorder there is now significant lieberman show a change in circumstance including new professional evidence new scientific evidence that shows that he no longer has this disorder that is merely been a step that remains including many of the issues that were discussed that