## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 4079 C HA S S I MO NS ON, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. R ANDA LL H EP P, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07 C397

—Barb ara B. C rab b, Chief Judge.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 19, 2008

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 9, 2008

Befo re P OSNER, R IPPLE, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . T od ay, w e resolve Ch as Sim ons on’s appeal fro m a dist ri ct courtj ud gm ent denying hi s peti ti on f o r a wri t o fhabe as c o r pus . As per us ua l, we st ar t wi ththe f ac ts , whi ch, de spi te a few e di torial co m m en ts a l o ngthe w ay, we set o u t in t h e l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o the S tat e o f W i sc o ns i n. S i m onso n w ent t o tr iali n W i sco nsi n sta te cour t in 200 2 on ch ar ge s t h at h e s ex u ally as sa u lte d h i s se ve n -ye ar -old2 N o. 07

- 4079 daught er . The pr i m ar y e vi den ce a g ain s t hi m c ame fr o m the al l ege d vi cti m , wh o w e wil l cal l Donna. Donna, w h o w as ni ne ye ar s o l d w hen the tr i al ro lled ar ound, tes ti fi ed that Si m onso n pla ced hi s peni s in her vag i na o n two separ ate o cc as i o ns , fi r sti n the spr i ngof1 99 9 an d a g ain in the s pr i ng of 2000
. Sim ons on’s coun sel tried to im p each D o n na ’s te st i m o ny b y po i nt i ngo uttha t she rec an te d ( twi ce ) a nd ha d g i ve n inco ns i st en t st at ement s r eg ar di ngthe t i m i ng and l oca ti on ofthe ass aul ts. S i m onso n al so prese nted proo f of a m ot ive to lie . H e w as livin g on an d off w ith h is w ife

— Donna’s m othe r, Kri stina S i m onso n

— at the t i m e o f th e in c id en ts , an d th e c ou p le u ltim at e l y d ivo rc ed in Ju ly 20 00 . In th e fa ll of th at ye ar , Sim on so n d ec id ed to se ek fu ll cus t o dy o fDo nn a a nd h e r y o un g e r s i s t e r . S i monso n tes ti fi ed that he i nfo rm ed K ri stina o fhi s intentio ns o n Decem ber1, 2000. A l though K ri stina could not recal l that conve rs ati on, o ne o f her fri ends tes ti fi ed that K ri stina had tol d her Si m onso n w as thre ate ni ng to ta ke th e ki ds aw ay. T h e t i mi n gi s k e y . I twa s o n D e c e mb e r 3 , 20 0 0 , j u s tt wo days a fterS i m onso n dis c los ed hi s pl an, thatDonna fi rs t supp ose dlytold Kri stina abo ut the ass aul ts. A nd thr ee d ays later K risti na to ok D onn a to th e po li ce stat ion, w he re D onn a sha red her story w ith th e au th oriti es. Sim ons on’s ta k e o n a l l thi s: Kri st i na c o ax ed he r da ug ht eri nt o making f al se sta tem ents to bl ockS i m onso n fro m ga i ni ng cust ody. T h e St at e o ffer ed co rro b or at in g e vid e n c e fro m Ju lie K en n ed y-O eh ler t, a n u rs e s p ec ializ in g in se x u al a ss au lt w ho had exam i ned Donn a in Jan uary20 01. Kenn edyOeh l er t t esti fi ed th atDo nna ’ s hy m en alt i ss ue a l o ngthe l ower por ti on o fh ervagi na w as “vi rtual l y m i ssing. ” I n her opi ni on, the onl y e xplanat i on w as insert i on o fan obj ect,N o. 07

- 4079 3

su cha s a m an ’ s pen i s. A l th o ug h a g i r l ’ s hy m eni s ex t rem ely sensitive prior to pu berty, K en ne d y-Oe hlert t e s t i fi e d t h a ti tg e n e r a l l y s t a y s i n t a c t“ u n l e s s th e r e i s s o me p re ss u re p u t d ire c tly on th at tis su e o r n ea r th at tis su e . . . . ” W he n Ke nne dy- Oeh l er t as k ed Do nna “i fs o m eo ne ha d put an yt h in g inh er v ag in a,” D on n a s aid h er d ad h ad p u t “ h is w ien er in.” To co unter thi s t est i m on y, S i m onso n so ught t o devel op a n a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r th e h y me n a l d amag e. He m ad e a n offe r of p ro of t h at D on n a w as se ve re ly c on st ipat ed when sh e w as o ne y ea ro l d, a nd tha t Kri st i na a nd Donna’s gr an dm othe r att em pted to extr act the s too l by press i ng t h eir thum bs a gainst Donna’ s r ecta l and vag i nal ar ea s as if they w er e t ry i ng to “pop a pim ple

. ” The s tat e tr i alj ud ge w as not i m press ed. W i thout expertte sti m ony to bu ttress Sim o n son ’s theory

— to pr o ve tha t th es e ac ti o ns coul d i n f act ca us e a te ar i n Donna’s hym en

— the j ud ge bel i ev ed th e j ur y woul d b e l eft to s pec ul at i o n. In the j ud ge ’s o pini on, “[ o] rdi naryexper i ence and com m on sense ” di d not r evealthe l i nk be tw een the al l ege d cause and effect. H e the r e fo r e p ro hibi ted S i m onso n fro m pre senti ng thi s theor y. The j ur y c o nv i c t e d S i mon s o n a s c ha r g e d a nd the j ud ge sente nced hi m to te n yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent fol l owed byan equa l pe r i o d o fe xt en ded su per vi si o n. A t th e se nt en cing hear i ng, the St ate as ked the j ud ge to consi der the f act that th e pr es en te n c e rep or t sh ow ed Sim on so n ’s in vo lve m en t in the sexual ass aul t ofa 13- yea r- ol d gi rl

. Because Si m onso n w as n ev er ch a r g ed , ho w ev er , th e c ou rt“p lac e[d ] little si g ni fi ca nc e” o n tha t co nduc t, f o cu sing i ns te ad o n the4 N o. 07

- 4079 g r av i tyo fthe c r i m e, the da m ag e to the v i ct i m , a nd the ne ed to protec t both the victim a nd th e pu bli c from fut ure ass aul ts. W i th r espectto the l astco nsi derat i on, the j ud ge poi nted to , am ong othe r thi ngs, the hi gh r eci divi sm r ate s f o r o ffen der s l i k e S i m o ns o n: [ B]as ed on m y e xperi ence, indiv i du al s w ho underta ke thi s type o fbehav i orty pica lly do i t m or e than once w ith m or e t h an on e v ict im , un like ch ar ge s like h om ici de w here st ati sti cal l y the l i kel i hood i s they’ re nev er go in g t o d o it a g a i n . B u t in th es e k in d s o f ca se s, if it ha ppen ed o nc e, i t’ s v ery l i k ely go i ngto ha ppena g ain. Or a t l e a s t the t e mpt a t i o n t o do i t a g a i n i s g o i ng to be th er e. S o Is ee a v ery, v ery hi g h n ee d to p rotectthe pu bl i c. S i m o ns o n wan te d t o a ppea l b o th h is c o nv i ct i o n a nd se n te n c e, bu t h is a tt or n ey d ro p p ed th e b all, failin g t o file eit h er a tim ely p os tc on vic tio n m ot ion or a n ot ice of ap p ea l. Fo rt u n at ely for Sim on so n, th e W isc on sin C ou rtof A p p ea ls re in st at ed h i s a p p ella te righ ts in 2 00 5, St at eex re l
. Chas Si m ons on v. Randal l Hepp , Case N o . 2 0 0 5 AP1354- W ( W i s. Ct. A pp . Sep t. 29 , 20 05) , and Si m onso n fi l ed a m oti on f or p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e fwi th th e t r i a l c o u r tr a i s i n gt wo c l ai m s: ( 1) thatthe cour t infr i nged upon hi s r i ght t o prese nt a defe nse wh en it bar re d him fro m o ffer i ng an al te r na ti ve e xpl an at i o n f o r Do nna ’ s hy m eni nj ur y ; a nd (2) t h a t t h e c ou rtrelie d u p on ina c c u ra te info rm at ion in sente nci ng. The tr i alco urt rej ecte d both c l ai m s. W i th re spect t o the fi rs t cl ai m , the j ud ge re i ter ate d his o pini on th at “ ex pert tes ti m ony w oul d be nece ssa ry. . . to expl ain how ‘ re ctal ’ or othe r sti m ula ti on appli ed to disl odge fecalN o. 07

- 4079 5

m at te r . . . woul d, o r e ve n c o ul d, b e th e ca us e o ft earing and disr up ti on o fthe hym en, witho ut causing the j ury to i m pr o per l y s pec ul at e. ” T he g i sto fS i m o ns o n’ s se co nd c laim

— then and now

— is t h at th e jud ge relie d on rec id ivi s m r a t e s f o r c hi l d mo l e s t a t i o n, a s o pp o s e d t o i ncest. Re ci d ivi sm byi nc es t o ffen der s i s l o wer, he s ay s, a nd the j ud ge shoul d h av e fi gure d that into hi s ca l cul us. The tr i al j udg e was n’ t en ti r ely di smi ss i ve of thi s ar g um en t, b uthe den i ed r el i efb ec au se the r ec i di vi s m inf o r m at i o n ( per tine nt oro ther w i se) o ccupie d onl y a per i pheralrol e in hi s a nal ysi s. T h in gs w en t s im ilar ly in th e s ta te a p p ella te co u rt . In affi rm ing the tri al j ud ge’s de c is io n req uiring ex p ert t e s t i m o n y, th e a p p ella t e co u r t echo e d h i s senti m ents: “ [ E]xperttesti m ony w as re quir ed beca use m ak i nga c au sa l l i nk be twe en th e al l eg ed tr ea tmenta nd the torn hym en is n ot w i thi n the r eal m o fo rdi naryexper i ence and com m on s ense. ” St at ev. Chas S. , 29 7 W i s. 2d 58 5, 72 4 N
. W
. 2d 704, * 1 ( W i s. Ct
. App. Oc t. 3 1, 2 00 6)
. And Sim on so n co u ld n ’t jus t u se K e n n e d y-O eh ler t’s te st im o ny

— “u nl es s the r e i s so m e pr es su r e putdi r ec tly o n [ th e hy m en ] o r ne artha t ti ss ue i t g en er al l y s ta y s i ntact ”

—because i t was ato nce t oo ge nera l and unique to i ts conte xt. A s the W i sco nsi n Court ofA pp eal s put i t: Thats i ng l e s e nt e nc e do e s n o tp r o v i de a n a de qu a te f oundati on fo r Ch as’ s a l ternate theo ry . The nurse was not ask ed w hetherpl aci ng thum bs o n the exter i oro f the v agina coul d res ulti n the dam age she f ound in her exam i nati on. The nurse ’ s s i ngl e re fer ence to dam age “n ea r tha t t i ss ue ” woul d notsuffi ci en tly enl i g ht enthe j ury to al l ow itto acc ept Chas’ s a l ternate theo ry .6 N o. 07

- 4079 A bsent expertte sti m ony, in o therwords, the appell ate cou r tde t e r mi ne d tha tthe p r o ffe r e d e v i de nc e wa s i r re l evan t. A nd bec au se a d efend an t has no right to use that sort o fe vi den ce , i ts e xc l us i o n di d no t ab r i dge S i m o ns o n’ s r i g ht to prese nt a defe nse. M o vingo n t o s en te nc i ng, the a p p ell at e co ur t f o und n o er r o r i n the t r i alj udg e’ s po st
- co nv i ct i o n a na l y si s. The appe l l at e co ur t as su m ed f o r the sa k e o fa r g um en t th atthe t r i a l j u d g e c o n s i d e r e d th e w r o ng r e c i d i v i s m d a t a . Ho wev er , i t d et er m in ed th at th e in for m at ion p lay e d n o ro le in the j ud ge’ s a nal ysi s, wh i ch f ocuse d on t he par ti cul ar circum stan ces of Si m ons on’s h istory an d beh avior. Si m onso n’s co ntenti on that the lo w er r ate s fori ncest shoul d contr oldi d not s w ay the appell ate cour t: “The f act th at p er p et ra to rs of in c es t m ay h av e a low er rat e o f rec id ivi sm th ano th ers ex ua l abus er s does no t es tabl i shtha t he prese nts a l ow ri sk to hi s chi l dren o r othe rs . ” Id. at* 3. Si m onso n’s peti ti on f or re vi ew i n the Suprem e Court of W isc on sin w as d en ied

. St at e v. Chas S. , 29 9 W i s. 2d 32 8, 73 1 N
. W
. 2d 638 (J an . 9, 2007). W i th hi s s t a t e r e med i e s e xh a us t e d, S i mon s o n fi l e d a peti ti on f or a w ri t o fhabea s co rpus in federa l di str i ct c ourt
. Ch i efJ ud ge Barbar a Crabb re fer re d the peti ti on t o M agi str at e J udg e S te phe n Cro ck erf o r pr epa r at i o n o fa r epo r t an d re com m endati on a nd then adopted the l att er ’ s s ugges ti on to d ism iss
. T h e jud ge ap p ro ve d th e s ta te co u rt s’ ra tio n ale o n the e vi den ti ar y i ss ue

— wi tho ut e xp e r t t e s t i mony to bridg e the gap betw e e n c a us e (attem p ted rem oval ofa st oo l) an d effe c t (t or n h ym en ), Sim on so n ’s th eo ry “w ou ld have been hi ghl y s pecula ti ve. ” Si m ons on v. Hepp , 07

- 0039 7,N o. 07

- 4079 7

* 2 ( W
. D. W i s. Nov
. 2 1, 2 00 7)
. W i thre spe ctto the s en te nc i ng i ss ue , on th e o th erha nd, the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ev i ew c o nt a i ne d a h e a l thydo s e o fc r i t i c i s m. Co ns i de r i ngthe r e c o r d, the di str i ct c ourtco uld notacc ept the vi ew thatthe tr i al j ud ge had not f acto re d i n re ci divi sm r ate s at all

. H ow ever, th e c ou rtfou n d th e e rro r h ar m les s (t h e s en te n c e w ou ld ha ve b ee n the s ame w ithou t th ati nf o r m at i o n) a nd the ult i m ate concl usi on s up port ed by the f acts ( Si m onso n w as l i k e l y t o r e - o ffe nd ) , s o the p e t i ti o n f o r r e l i e fwa s de ni e d. N ow on to th is a p p ea l. W e r e v i e w a fe de r a l hab e a s c o ur t ’ s f a c tua l fi nd i ng s f or cl earer ro r and i ts l ega l co ncl usi ons deno vo . R izzo v. Sm ith , 528 F. 3d 501, 50 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08 )
. U nd erthe A nti ter ro ri sm an d E ffec t i v e D e at h P en alt y A c t o f 19 96 (A E D P A ), a p et itio n er is on ly en tit led to h ab ea s relie f w h en th e d ec isi on o fthe l astst ate co urt to consi der the case i s e i ther “c on tr ar y t o” or “ an u n re as on ab le a p p lica tio n of” cl e a rly est abl i shed federa l l aw as deter m i ned by the U ni ted S tat es Su p re m e C ou rt . 28 U .S.C . § 22 54 (d )(1) . A d ec isio n is con trary to clearly estab li sh ed fed eral l aw i f th e state cou rt appl i es a r ul e th atc o nfl i ct s wi tha r ul e i d en ti fi ed bythe S up r e me C o u r t, o r i fth e s t a t e c o u r tr e a c h e s a d i ffe r en t c on c lu sio n t h an t h e Su p re m e C ou rtin a ca se w ith m at er ially in d ist in gu ish ab le fa c ts
. Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or, 52 9 U.S
. 36 2, 405- 06 ( 2000 )
. A deci si on involv e s a n un r e aso nabl e a pp l i cati on o fcl ear l y est abl i shed l aw i fthe sta te cour t “ i denti fi es th e c or re c t g ov er n in g leg al p rin c ip le .

. . bu t u n re as on ab ly appli es that pri nci ple to the f acts ofthe pri sone r’ s ca se. ” Id. at 413. U nd erbo th te sts , m er e e rr ori s no t s uffi ci ent; a sta te c ou rt ’s d ec isio n m u st be “ o b j ec tiv ely u n re as on ab le.” Loc kye rv. Andrade, 538 U
. S. 63, 76 (2003).8 N o. 07

- 4079 M easu red against th e rub ric ofA E D PA , Si m on s on’s cl ai m s ha ve l i tt l e ch an ce o fs ucc es s. Tha t’ s no t to s aythe ca se a g ains t hi m was a irt i g ht

. I t’ s si m pl y t o s aytha t th e deci si on o fthe W isc on si n Court ofA pp eal s was not obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e. Si m onso n fi rs t ar gues that the e xcl usi on o fhi s a l ternati ve theo rydepri ved hi m o f t h e abi l i ty to conte st the c harg e aga i nst hi m . The S i xth A m endm ent, thr ough i ts spi ri t i fnot i ts w or ds, g u ar an tee s a cr i m i nal defendant the ri ght t o p re se n t a d efe n se . Cham b e rs v. M i s s i s s ippi, 410 U
. S. 284, 30 2 ( 19 73 )
. At a min i m um , thi s m ea ns a de fendan t m ay“ put bef or e a j ury evi dence that m i ght i nfl uence the dete rm i nati on o fgui l t. ” Taylor v. Ill inois , 48 4 U.S
. 40 0, 40 8 ( 1988 )
. Li ke m ostr i ghts, however, the ri ght to prese nt a defe nse i s no t unli m i ted and m ay “bow to acco m m odate othe r l egi ti m ate in te re st s in th e crim in al tria l p r oc es s.” C ha m bers , 410 U
. S. at 29 5; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Knox , 5 4 0 F.3d 708, 719 (7th Cir. 20 08 ). A m on g t h es e in te re st s a re “fa irn es s an d re liab ility in the a scer tainm ent o fgui l t a nd i nnocence. ” C ha m bers , 41 0 U
. S. at30 2; H o r t o n v. Litsch er, 427 F.3d 498 , 504 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 5 )
. T o fur the r th e s e i nt e r e s t s , s t a t e s h a v e b r o a d l a t i t ud e to adopt r ule s e xcl ud in g evidence so l ong as they ar e no t “arbitrary or disp rop ortionate to th e pu rp ose th ey are desi gned to se rv e. ” Johnson v. B et t, 349 F. 3d 1030 , 1035 ( 7th Cir
. 20 03) . R ule s that pr ohibi t i rr el evanto r specul ati ve ev id en c e a re kos h er . Hood v. U ch t m an , 41 4 F
. 3d 736, 73 8- 39 (7th C ir. 2005); M organ v. Kr e nke, 2 32 F.3d 562 , 566 (7th C ir. 2000 ). A nd that ’ s where Si m onso n runs i nto tr oubl e. To r epeat, th e state trial cou rt proh ibi ted him from tell ing the j uryN o. 07

- 4079 9 that the inj ury to Donna c ou ld h ave bee n caused byher m othe r and gra nd m othe r’ s e ff or ts to re l i eve co nsti pati on because i t wo u l d have r equi re d specula ti on. W e t end to agr ee. W hi l e there i s s om e intui ti ve m er it to t he i dea that p re ss u re n ea r th e v ag in al a n d rec ta l are as co u l d r e s u lt in tea rin g ofthe hym en, i t i s f arfro m o bvi ous. I t i s no t l i ke a s k i n ga j u r y to c o n s i d e r, s a y, th e f a c tth a ta b l o w fr o m a b as eb all b at ca n lea d to a b r ok en lim b . N ev er th ele ss , i t is tem pti ng to bu y Sim onso n’s ar gum ent that there was re lev an t e x p er t t es t i m on y a va ilab le

— K en ne d y-Oe hlert’s st at em ent that the hym en ge nera l l y s tay s intact “unle ss ther e i s s om e pr ess ure p u t d ire ctl y o n that ti ssue ornear that ti ssue. ” I t is tem pti ng, w e say, bu t not wholly c onvi nci ng. I t was r eas onabl e t o hol d that thi s t est i m ony d i d not su it th e p u rp os e b ec au se K en n ed y-O eh ler t a n n ou n c ed th is ge n er al p ro p os itio n o n ly a s b ac kg ro u n d to h er sp ec ific c on c lusi on ( that the inj ury w as caused byi nser ti on o fan obj ect)
. Kenn edy- Oehle rtp ro babl y would have bee n surpri sed to l ear n Si m onso n’sappli cati on o fherte sti m ony. That’ s ho w the sta te cour ts saw i t, and we ar e no t pr epare d to lab el th at vie w “o bj ec tiv ely u n re as on ab le.” U nd erthe federa l and sta te rul es ofev i dence al i ke, expertte sti m ony i s app ro pri ate if“s peci al i zed kno w l edge w i l l ass i st the tr i er of f act to und er sta nd the evi dence orto deter m i ne a f act i n i ssue . . . . ” Fed. R. Evid. 702; W i s. S tat
. § 9 07. 02. A l though these rul es do not req u ireex p er t t es tim o ny

— th ey on ly sa y w h en it is p er m iss ible

— they poi nt to a ba si c truth oftr i alprac ti ce: exper t t est i m ony i s often n ee d ed to elim in a t e sp ec u lat ion
. Se e, e . g. , O wen v. Ge ne r al M ot ors Corp. , 533 F.3d 91 3, 92 4 (8 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. Han , 23 0 F
. 3d 560, 56 4 ( 2d Cir
. 2000)
. Pre venting specul a-10 N o. 07

- 4079 t i o n i s u nd o ub t e dl y a l e g i t i mat e s t a t e i nt e r e s t, a nd e xc l ud

in g ev id en ce in the nam e o fthati nter estdi d not abri dge Si m onso n’s r i ght t o prese nt a defe nse i n thi s ca se. The st ate ap p el l ate co urt’s dec isi on to th is effect w as ne ither con trary to noran unre aso nabl e a pp l i cati on o fcl ear l y e stabl i shed fe d e r a l l a w. On to the next cl ai m , then, wh er e S i m onson ar gues that hi s s entence w as i nfe cted byf al se i nfo rm ati on. Due proce ss dem ands that a courtsentence a defendant upon accura te in for m at ion
. U nited Sta tes v. A r t ley, 48 9 F
. 3d 813, 82 1 ( 7th Ci r. 2 007). To o bt ain the r emedy o fr es en te nc i ng, a de fen dant m ust e stab li sh thatthe sente nci ng co urt re l i ed on cr i ti ca l i na cc ur at e i nf o r m at i o n whe n a nno uncin gthe se n te n c e. See L e c h n e rv . Fr ank, 341 F.3d 635 , 639 (7th C ir. 2003 ). Did t h e stat e t ri alj ud ge re l y o n i naccurat e info rm ati on about re ci divi st ra tes o frun-o f

- the- m i l l chi l d m ol est er s v i sà- vi s i nc e s t uou s chi l d m ol est er s when he i m posed the 10- yea r sente nce in t hi s ca se? Si m onso n say s y es

— an d, he ar gues, thatm ade a differ ence here because rec i divi st ra tes ar e l ow er fo r thos e who ass aul t thei r own chi l dren as o ppo se d t o tho se who a ss au l t o th erc hi l dr en . The W i sc o nsi n Court ofA pp eal s s ai d no. The fi r stpr o bl em w i thS i m o ns o n’ s ar g um en t i s th atthe sente nc i ngj ud g e h e r e di d n o tr e l y o n a nyh a r d s t a t i s t i c al dat a; he di d no t co ns ul t r ec i di vi sm studi es o r c ha r ts b ut ra therbas ed hi s v i ew o n hi s o w n “exper i ence” i n thes e sor ts ofcas es. T he Sup re m e C ourth as rej ecte d the i dea that th i s i s so m eh o w i m pr o per . In Barc l ay v . Fl or i da , 469 U.S
. 93 9 ( 19 83 ) , the Court up he l d a j udg e’ s dec i si o n i m po singtheN o. 07

- 4079 11 death penal ty w here the j ud ge ex p lai ned his deci si on by com pari ng the defe nd ant’ s cri m es to w hat he had w i tn es se d in N az i c a m p s . Th e C ou rtob se rv ed th at “[i]tis ne i th erpo ss ibl e no r de si r ab l e f o r a pe r so n t o who m the S ta te e nt r us ts a n i m po r ta ntj ud gm entt o de ci de i n a vacuum , as i fhe ha d no exper i ences. ” Id. at95 0. Bu t, ev en as sum i ng the se ntenci ng j ud ge did r el y o n und i scl ose d “sta ti sti cal ” data

— a nd tha ti s a wi l d a s s umpti on

— the n a t ur e o fth a tda t a i s unc l e a r . S i mon s o n c o nt e nd s that the s entencing co urt “co nfus ed reci divi sm r ate s o f c h ild m ole st er s in ge n er al, for w h ich th er e is a re lat ive ly hi gh r ate o fr e- offense, with th e l ow reci divi sm r ate f or i ncest offenders .

. . .” T he sentenci ng transc ri pt ver y m uch i m pli es that the s entencing j ud ge vi ew ed S i monson notj ust as a ny c hi l d m o l es te r, b uta s an i n c e s t uou s child m olester. Befo re r eachi ng the reci divi sm fact or, the j ud ge had thi s t o sa y abo utthe g r av i tyo fthe o ffen se : “F r an k l y, Ic an ’ t th i nk ofm an y m or e wors e o ffenses than sexual l y a ssa ult i ng a seve n-y ear - ol d chil d that is the product of you and your wife .” That r em ar k was m ade onl y am om en t b efore the j ud ge concl ud ed that “ind i vi du al s who und er tak e thi s type o f behavi orty pica l l y do i t m or e than once. ” S o the no ti on that the j ud ge w as tal ki ng ab out chi l d m ol est er s in gene ra l see m s quest i onabl e a t be st. But, f o r the sa k e o fa r g um en t, l et ’ s as su m e th e se nt en cing j u d ge a c tu ally co n sid er ed h ar d st at ist ics reg ar d in g re c id ivi sm bym ol est er s o fnonf am i l i alvi ctim s. The studi es S i m o ns o n pr es en te d t o the t r i alc o ur t when se ek i ng post c o nv i c t i o n r e l i e f, the s a me s t ud i e s h e c i t e s t o u s , do ten d to establ ish that child m olesters in genera l are m ore12 N o. 07

- 4079 l i kel y t o re - offend (o r at l eas t be co nvi cted ag ai n) than i ncest offenders. H owever, theydo notes tabl ish that concl usi vel y, and, i n any eve nt, theyal so sugge st that perpetr ato rs l i ke Si m onso n are l i k el y t o s tr i k e ag ain. A cco rd ing t o a Depart m ent o fJ usti ce r epor t o ffer ed by Si m onso n, i ncest offenders have a r eco nvi cti on r ate o f 6 per cent, wh i le the r ate f orchi l d m ol est er s i s be tw een 2 5 an d 30 p er c en t d ep en d in g on th e vic tim ’s gen d e r . R ec id iv i s m of Se x O f f e n d e r s (M a y 2 001) a t ht tp: //w w w . cso m . or g/pu bs/ re ci dsexof

. htm l ( l astvi si ted O ctob er 9, 2008). H ow ever, becau se it uses t h e term “i ncest”

— as opposed to “incestuo us chi l d m ol est ati on” or the l i ke

— the incest data co uld be r ead notas a subseto fthe chi l d m ol est ati on data, but as an enti re l y separatecategory ( i ncl ud i ng i nci dents with m i nor s andadul ts) , i n w hi ch cas e it m igh t be j u st as ap p ro p ria te to ap p ly th e hig h e r c h i ld m ol est ati on fi gure s t o Si m onso n. N eve rthel ess , the othe r study S i m onso n ci tes clear s th e a i r a bi t, r epor ti ng tha t “[ t] he ri sk f orsexual offense re ci divi sm . . . i ncre ase [ s] f or th ose w ho h a[ve] .
. . an ex trafa m ili a l victim

. ” R. K arl H an so n & M on iq u e T . B u ss ièr e, Pre di ct i ng Rel aps e : A M e t aA na lysis o

f S exu a l O

ffend er R ecid ivi sm Stu dies , 66 J ournalo f Con su l tinga nd Cl i ni cal Psy ch o l o g y 3 48 , 3 51 ( 19 98 )
. But th at re portal so i denti fi es “se xual i nter esti n chi l dren” a s the “si ngl e str onge st predi cto r” of sexual

- offen se rel apse, i d. , and the DOJ study warns that r eci divi sm i n the case o f i nc es t i s se ve r ely unde r r epo r te d be ca us e vi ct i m s fear the di srupt i o n i t m ayc au se t o th ei r f ami l i es . Con si der ed i n the agg re gat e, thes e s tudies d o li ttl e t o und er m i ne the tr i al c o ur t ’ s c o nc l us i o n tha tS i mon s o n wa s l i k e l y t o r e - o ffe nd

. P er h ap s t h e m an w h o h as se x w ith h is a d u lt s ist er isN o. 07

- 4079 13

u n like l y t o d o it a ga in, bu t t h at, of co u rs e, is n otatall com parabl e t o the a ssa ult here , wh er e Donna t est i fi ed that her dad car rie d heri nto hi s be droo m , r em ove d her paj am as, put so m e k i nd o fcl earl i q u i d fr om a bot tl e o n her cr o tc h a r ea a nd o n h i s pen i s, put he r o n to p o fhi m , a nd put h is p en is “ in sid e h er cr ot c h .” I n sum , we bel i eve the sente nci ng judge di d rel y o n s o me thi ng

— hi s e xperi ence re veal i ng tha t o ffenders l i ke Si m onso n tend to have a hi gh ra te of rec idiv i sm

—but Si m onso n has f ai l ed to pro ve that “so m ethi ng” was i na cc ur at e. The s ta te appe l l at e co ur t’ s dec i si o n uph o l di ng the s entence , r ega rdl ess o fthe ra tion ale , was nei ther c on t ra ry to n or an u n re as on ab le a p p lica tio n of cle ar ly e s t ab l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w. T he district cou rt’s j ud gm en t de ny ing Sim ons on’s peti ti on f orhabea s co rpus i s A FFI RMED .

12- 9- 08