Opinion ID: 4272678
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Daubert hearing

Text: ¶12 On June 17, 2014, Jones filed a motion to bar testimony pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 907.02. In general, he argued that expert testimony regarding any results of the MnSOST-R, the RRASOR, and the Static-99 should be excluded because they are not based on sufficient facts or data, they are not the product of reliable principles and methods, and they were not applied reliably to the facts of Jones' case. Specifically, [Jones argued that] all three actuarial risk instruments have obsolete norms and fail to adequately take into 7 No. 2015AP2665 account the correlation between age and recidivism risk. He argued that the MnSOST-R is particularly flawed because it has not been published in an academic journal, was developed using inadequately small and unrepresentative samples (256 offenders), and excludes offenders known to have lower recidivism rates. Similarly, Jones argued that the RRASOR has not been published in an academic journal, was developed using inadequately small and unrepresentative samples (2,592 offenders), and its 10-year reconviction rate is just a factor of the 5-year reconviction rate, that is, it is not based on empirical data. ¶13 On August 20, 2014, the State filed its response. It noted that Jones did not appear to be challenging the use of actuarial instruments in general, or the qualifications of Dr. Jurek or the State's other expert, Bradley Allen, Ph.D. The State then argued that the MnSOST-R, RRASOR, and Static-99 have all been carefully researched, widely discussed and dissected in the professional literature. They are the product of sophisticated, but hardly novel, statistical techniques for the analysis of large amounts of data. Experts may disagree on the application, scoring, interpretation and weight to be given to the various actuarial instruments . . . but that is a different matter than claiming that the instruments themselves are not the product of reliable data, and principles. In this regard, the State observed that all of the experts—— Jones' included——rely on substantially the same risk assessment methodology, but give weight to different factors during that process. It argued that these differences are not a matter of admissibility, but rather that they are matters best resolved 8 No. 2015AP2665 through cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence. ¶14 On August 25 and 26, 2014, the circuit court held a hearing on the motion. At the hearing, Dr. Jurek and Dr. Allen testified for the State, and Richard Waller, Ph.D., testified for Jones. ¶15 Dr. Jurek testified that his evaluations incorporate a review of records from the police, the Department of Corrections, and probation officers, as well as a social history, substance abuse history, sexual history, and treatment history, along with the actuarial assessments. He explained that an actuarial assessment is the use of particular demographic variables that you can score a particular individual on, and then compare their score to individuals in a sample population who have a known rate of recidivism. He also explained that all of the instruments have limitations, and, at best, have moderate predictive accuracy, but that evaluators incorporate the results from these instruments into their reports because [u]sing the actuarials has been proven to be more accurate. In this regard, Dr. Jurek noted that there is no one best instrument, that every instrument has limitations, and that which instrument to use is a matter of preference and a matter of how evaluators weigh the results in the process of their evaluation. He then testified regarding each of the four actuarial instruments that he used in his evaluation of Jones. ¶16 With regard to the MnSOST-R, Dr. Jurek testified that, although there is no definitive academic paper on the test, 12 9 No. 2015AP2665 research inquiries have found it to have a positive relationship to sexual recidivism. He also testified that the MnSOST-3——a more recent instrument published by the creators of the MnSOST-R——is not a replacement because its sample is made up of different kinds of offenders than were included in the sample for the MnSOST-R. In this regard, he was aware of the criticism that the purposeful exclusion of offenders known to be low-risk (intrafamilial and non-contact offenders) resulted in a sample biased to overestimate risk, but testified that selective sampling can be useful if the goal is to homogenize the sample to improve predictive accuracy for a more specific population of people. He was also aware of the criticism that the dichotomous way in which the MnSOST-R accounts for age6 is inadequate because it fails to account for the observed trend that the risk of recidivism continues to decline in a linear fashion as offenders age, but testified that accounting for age differently does not mean that the test inadequately accounts for age. Ultimately, Dr. Jurek testified that the MnSOST-R is based on sufficient facts and data, and that it is the product of reliable principles and methods. ¶17 With regard to the RRASOR, Dr. Jurek testified that, although the test was not originally published in a peerreviewed journal, he used it because it has an established 6 In applying the MnSOST-R, evaluators add a point to an offender's score if he or she is less than 30 years old and no points are added or subtracted if he or she is more than 30 years old. 10 No. 2015AP2665 history of use, with approximately 35 studies demonstrating a positive relationship to sexual recidivism. He was aware of the criticism that the sample had not been updated since 1997 (when it was first published), but testified that, even if the general norms for sexual recidivism[] go down, [if] you're working in a [high-risk] population, the newer norms don't do you any good. He was also aware of the criticism that the 10year recidivism rates are simply a multiplication factor of the 5-year recidivism rates (i.e., are not based on empirical data), but disagreed that that was actually the case. Additionally, the same criticism raised regarding age against the MnSOST-R was raised against the RRASOR, but, as he had testified regarding the MnSOST-R, Dr. Jurek testified that the dichotomous age7 metric did not render the instrument ineffective. Ultimately, Dr. Jurek testified that the RRASOR is based on sufficient facts and data, and that it is the product of reliable principles and methods. ¶18 Dr. Allen also testified for the State. He testified primarily with regard to the Static-99 and the Static-99R, which were the instruments he had relied on in conducting his evaluation of Jones. He did, however, testify that he did not use the RRASOR because he believed it to be outdated, but that there was nothing unreliable about the data used to construct 7 In applying the RRASOR, evaluators add a point to an offender's score if he or she is less than 25 years old and no points are added or subtracted if he or she is more than 25 years old. 11 No. 2015AP2665 it. Specifically, on the issue of measuring the effect of age on the risk of recidivism, Dr. Allen testified that, although age [] is definitely a factor to consider, we don't know why. He suggested that it could be because older offenders are underreported, or it could be related to declining health in older offenders. He acknowledged that [k]nowing why age and recidivism are correlated . . . is not needed to conclude that incorporating age can improve risk assessment measures, but testified that the fact that there is a debate about how to incorporate the age factor does not equate with unreliability or invalidity. Ultimately, he concluded that responsible examiners may responsibly use different actuarial instruments and that it is somewhat prudent to look at all the different assessments, and all the different factors and consider them for a particular individual. ¶19 Dr. Waller testified for Jones and testified about all four tests. He prefaced his testimony by noting that he had not himself evaluated Jones; rather, his testimony was based on the evaluations of Drs. Jurek and Allen, and his own expertise, given his approximately 30 years in the field. ¶20 With regard to the MnSOST-R, Dr. Waller testified that it was not based on sufficient facts and data and was not based on reliable principles and methods because it had not been peer 12 No. 2015AP2665 reviewed,8 the sample on which it is based is small, biased, and unrepresentative as applied to Jones, and no one has ever analyzed which of the 16 factors the MnSOST-R accounts for are actually related to recidivism. In particular, the biased nature of the sample virtually guarantees a high false positive rate over estimating the probability of recidivism. ¶21 With regard to the RRASOR, Dr. Waller testified that it was not based on sufficient facts and data and was not based on reliable principles and methods because its dichotomous means of accounting for age is inadequate, its data set is many years old, and the 10-year rates are simply the 5-year rates multiplied by a factor of 1.5, which is a serious problem because actual empirical data indicates that the farther out you go the less likely offenders are to reoffend. ¶22 Despite these criticisms, Dr. Waller acknowledged that not all offenders are alike, that different subgroups have different risks, and that the best way to determine the risk of recidivism is to compare the individual to a similar subgroup. Additionally, Dr. Waller acknowledged that actuarial assessment is a complex task, that there is more than one way to conduct an actuarial assessment, and that all actuarial instruments have 8 Dr. Waller defined peer review[ed] as a method of judging the merits of a scientific article, and making a determination of whether it meets the standards of a journal. On cross-examination, however, he agreed that there is more than one way to peer review, including that it can be peer-reviewed if it's given at a, say, conference, but it doesn't have the same weight. 13 No. 2015AP2665 limits. In this regard, he agreed with Dr. Jurek that the instruments all report error rates and, at best, have moderate predictive accuracy. ¶23 After hearing brief closing arguments from counsel, the circuit court concluded that testimony as to the results from the MnSOST-R and the RRASOR was admissible. In doing so, it explained the standard it was applying as follows: [Wisconsin Stat. § 907.02] was revised in 2011 and tracks federal rule 702 also known as the Daubert standard . . . named after Daubert versus Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 1993. It is axiomatic. The Court can look to federal cases interpreting [this] rule[.] Because there is a dearth of case law, this Court will look primarily at federal law . . . . Judges may admit testimony resting on scientific, technical or otherwise specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of facts. . . . [R]ule 702 states that it does not condition admissibility on the State of the published literature and the complete and flaw free set of data, that a witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, and that expert may testify in the form of an opinion if the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data. The testimony is principles and methods, and the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case . . . . Daubert makes clear, [it does] not constitute a definitive checklist or test. Daubert adds that the gatekeeping inquiry must be tied to the facts of a particular case. The circuit court then concluded that: The evidence at the hearing through the witnesses show[s] that all of the tests and the testimony offered were the product of sufficient facts or data and the product of reliable [principles] and methods. . . . [W]hile publication in a journal is the most rigorous, it is not the only way to peer review. The witnesses 14 No. 2015AP2665 testified that these tests are routinely published [] both in journals and in published papers. . . . All of the instruments were subject of extensive review. They have been written about, and even criticized [in] the papers that [were] submitted. They have also been used in other cases, in other jurisdictions, and the Court was not able to find any cases where these tests were stricken based on admissibility or based on a Daubert challenge. The tools have been debated, reviewed, and revised. This is not junk science, which is what Daubert sought to reject. These actuarial tools are widely used in predicting recidivism in sex offenders. . . . Both Dr. Jurek, and Dr. Allen testified that they . . . reviewed Mr. Jones' records and all the information they had and testified that this is the type of information reasonably relied upon by experts in their field. And there was no evidence suggesting or even challenging that they administered the test incorrectly or interpreted the actuarial data incorrectly. The circuit court additionally noted: [T]he State proceeds at its own peril if Mr. Jones, through cross-examination can convince a jury that Dr. Jurek and Dr. Allen's [testimony] is antiquated . . . . [But] Mr. Jones' criticisms of the actuarial tools are only that, criticisms, and cannot form the basis for this court to exclude this testimony. The weight to give this testimony is for the jury to decide. This is a weight, not an admissibility analysis. . . . The Court is satisfied that this testimony presented meets all of the requirements for admissibility, and Mr. Jones' motion to exclude is denied.