recently your side up asked us to consider additional authority the fourth district case and so we're going to i think we're we're asking our parties to limit their argument to that case the court continued its entire though with no procedural posture different in this case that was a probable cause to determine whether a person should be held over for a jury or a trial to decide whether they were think that's kind of the heart of the matter here did get the respond in through testimony takesh men ever really provide any testimony anything a possible testimony that said in my opinion to a reasonable degree scientific certainty there is no substantial probability that mr lieberman will be i don't think he used those exact words are all right  follows i how do you how do you get that from what what case law but authority what inference how can you get to that point when the actor doesn't give an opinion in regard to the issue well he gave  really if you think there's a lot of individuals in prisons that are acting out that are in detention that they're acting out i mean is is it kind of really a realistic or even practical or plausible statement because know a little unfair to ask or to to interpret the setting in such a way that supposedly explains the absence of back when the act the setting itself prevent someone from acting out presumably i mean that's that's the argument from the the opposing doctors and it seems a little unfair to say the only reason he didn't act out is because he's in this setting and it suggests that he should stay setting from here on out because we can never be sure whether he's going to act out if he's put in a different setting i mean that makes it impossible absolutely impossible ever to get to the point where the likelihood of indicated that he had no he was not familiar with any state statutes involving the commitment of sexually dangerous persons he had not really treated any sexually dangerous persons who were committed he had basically no experience and  sexually violent persons hearing but he did say that he has evaluated played this previously he's just never valued when one for purposes of a hearing and beyond that we still maintain that that's an issue that goes to credibility that ends up going to the facts like but in this case if you look at her yet the supreme court said that the trial court didn't have to ignore latent credibility pro and in this case didn't the judge say that he had a very serious issue with the credibility of dr schmidt because he said the dr schmidt i mean that the only probable plausible account ever get for all of the rapes that mr lieberman committed was that a woman that he was trying to have intercourse with indicated to him that she did not want to have intercourse and eventually he was able to have really an expert for purposes of testimony they're giving would that be something that jury would decide with the court first have to why don't they have the experts declared an expert in a particular field before you before you answer that  with qualifications because we think that's an issue for the fact of the fact the better as well is it isn't really an issue for the fact finder couldn't the circuit court judge in this case have been presented up by a motion from the state saying in light of   questions of clear questions of incredible testimony may be rejected by the trial judge during the course of a problem because it did it mean that  credibility trial judge can dismiss testimony simply by by saying i find this person incredible i think the trial judge has to do more than just use the word incredible if you read if you want to harden the it speaking of stanbridge in that case he hearing was based on two written reports there was no light just does that make any difference  account in your position is that possibility can be impacted by the absence of evidence from the other side is that what you're saying i mean you're  and he also says if he does it is it has become and what words to use if if it if he does stuff suffer from it it's not i believe is the word remission yes or something to the effect that it has become it's at the point where what would it be say when he finished it off i believe if i remember correctly i think it was he said it was either in remission p bridge he said the responded should be discharged from i d h s custody and control based on one is low re citizen so the dr and that was just part of his opinion but part of his opinion was that indeed under the sexually violent persons a act mr stanbridge was no longer  suffering from the you know his paraphilia or any social whatever there were multiple diagnoses i believe but what he said was that it  opinion telling the fact telling the judge it's my opinion that because he doesn't suffer from here or that he never suffer from it or that it's so  it's so in remission or whatever i don't want to misstate is testimony the act in my opinion he should be discharged from us that he and home because he is no longer was necessarily but that judge court it got it was implausible when he gave this account for the reasons that these sexual assaults but what's missing here judge can or determination the judge can make based on the record we have because all we need have any illinois decisions that suggest that dr schmitz and his certainly not mine with many of the psychiatry  part is a mental disorder and then if we were to find that dr schmidt never gave an opinion on that exact question if we find that dr smith did not then  you're saying that there has been a change without psychiatric treatment only because time has passed and see all the evidence that you have  that right well these thirty years older i would say begin with but guess what you're telling us time is passed now he's not going to be a repeat ok but just so it's clear the only question before this is whether or not there should have been an avid entry any other authority in illinois exists regarding the diagnosis of her filly and what's not been said in our brief in this court in two thousand and nine two thousand and ten the last time we were here my briefs cited five cases in which experts had disorder listed in that three or true your honor they're old it is absolutely but both doctors swear and ostroff said that there's hardly anything in the field of psychology that's not going to be  whether there is a plausible account to believe that the petitioner is either entitle to discharge or a conditional release and to get to that second trial in this bifurcated system we've got yes to show reason probable cause to believe for purposes of conditional release that he's not likely to re offend so and so we're looking for testimony from dr schmidt correct on that exact point correct was there testimony from dr schmidt on that exact point there wasn't because his points were a there's no such thing as the disorder that the experts have diagnosed him with and b all of his rates can be explained by this no means yes theory which as important where a judge  r very candidly upon the closing of the hearing characterized as absolutely totally completely absurd that that sorry if that this was now heart was the recommit this is post trial judge it he's not likely to re offend should dr schmidt at least have said he doesn't suffer from paraphilia he never has and in my opinion if he's conditionally released he will two thousand and six jury proceeding yes wasn't there a question for the jury to decide whether the war or not the defendant had a mental disorder and that mental disorder would have been this dispute what was found by the jury well that he has that condition now what well whether or not he has that condition now that the schmidt was saying he never had that condition and that might have been a reason enough for the trial judge to have disregarded his entire testimony because the jury found otherwise and he and dr schmidt is a no position to overrule the jury's finding that mr lieberman doesn't fact have a mental disorder as has been described that's true your honor and then judge orders written i believe is written what actually this is for all comments after the hearing he said that he hasn't seen anything new here to individuals have all been convicted of crimes they've all been sentenced they've all completed their sentence and now the state is seeking to keep them in custody and it seems to me that the state that should order that the individual should be given the opportunity to demonstrate at an evidence or hearing that he should no longer be kept in custody and that should be the situation where we might be inclined to find such a large obstacle given mr lieberman's history but at the same time we can't simply write a decision for mr lieberman alone it would be a decision that would have to apply in every and we look at this that the case from the fourth district where it's stanbridge where the decision seems absolutely right and very little needed to be presented that's true you're out to get to that evidentiary hearing and we question whether or not what what really why was there enough evidence presented in this case because well that's and because i'm sorry i didn't back to your fairness i didn't interrupt to but you really want to do you really want to decide to do you really want us to decide on blatant credibility problems or do you want to say that there was no testimony from the expert as to the that an evidentiary hearing should go for i was i would be perfectly happy with the latter you're right but the former is just as good as far as well the snorer presents problems doesn't it i mean does it isn't that the unfairness that i was talking about can brought upon himself and deservedly so of great deal of of attention because he committed so many horrible crimes around but i don't know that week as as as as as law that we should say that a trial judge can in a probable cause hearing should simply be able to say credibility is enough we're disregarding it we should first well this case is somewhat unique and we  and the way it's the way the post was can it and statute is set up like its counterpart the pre commitment stage which we argue in our brief is somewhat different as far as the amount of proof that can come in here we have a statute that expressly explicitly allows any number of expert opinions to opine the propriety of this charge or c r the state gets an expert by its terms the respondent gets an expert by its terms my goodness even the court gets its own expert by its terms and all of these coming together but that's that's one of the problems that i have with your position and i understand you're trying to distinguish what you say pre commitment and close commitment but but as counsel pointed out the same term is used problem cause i commitment and probable causes in parts committed so the group rate pre committed the probable cause can't mean you you you only need a plausible explanation there's no way to have the evidence it cannot need probable cause impulse committed that you can weigh the evidence and you can have different experts and in light of the different experts a trial judge can can make those credibility terminations it doesn't seem to make sense and when i hear here's my bottom line yes let's say disc a swing to an eviden hearing tell me what the difference would be between a not insuring hearing down the line and what can this so called probable cause hearing before judge  saying i'm saying that being hit should be more likely it should happen more often after ensure hearing should go forward and when we are keeping an individual in custody well beyond me and term of his sent forward and and continued to build build your case which you have ample evidence for that maybe so your honor but for purposes of this case in particular that was going to happen based upon dr schmidt's testimony  why do we need an evidentiary hearing i mean that evidentiary hearing is virtually that very same problem cause hearing that you've just described a very extensive one with experts on both sides credibility determination well why don't you trust the question i had regarding the jury finding and whether or not dr schmidt is in any position to call into question the jury finding that mr lieberman suffered at least in two thousand and six from a mental disorder and dr schmidt should not be heard to come into a court room and say he doesn't suffer from anything what's why should we take that position well this case i think first the legislature made the session that there's going to be a purely review and this review is new doesn't that yearly review go to justice gordon's point that something has transpired in that year the review the statute doesn't necessarily use that language the statute says probable cause to believe that it's not especially likely or probably possible leave that he's no longer therefore each time there's an angle revealing this is because each time there needs to be some justification to continue a civil commitment which is extraordinary in our system generally if someone is committed in any way it's a criminal and present what is the likelihood that he would suffer from it now given where he's been from then till now well that's a determination i think for but i'm suggesting that that argument  without taking into account that he also says that he never suffered from it at any point in his life well part i think existence apparently in the west was not before the trial i think because of the statutory scheme in which the legislature clearly addition to review every year it's not binding on that review you can't you can't be suggesting that the legislature thought that in future all my work with whatever that this is a guy that doesn't have a disorder he's never had a disorder he's not going to be a man he shouldn't be in the department of human i think that's going to compound as you know that i think the first policy didn't say he doesn't have a mental disorder he never followed up but i don't think he should ever be committed he wasn't asked that question but i think in this case as the statute says to be especially by the person you have to have a mental disorder so if you did well there is a pin expert opinion on what it means to be authentic what about all this sort of brings to mind now to be is that if the supreme court perhaps there would be more to their decision about the evidence rehearing that took place in this case where the statute provides for all people experts to be appointed they were appointed in this actually says this person is no longer a subtly public person and to his not going to refer and i think in that case what we need for the standard with what we have here we have certainly had enough we have a doctor saying he does not have a mental disorder the very least he does not have a mental disorder now and that's enough to get the statutory intitled rights to the problem to the full probable