Opinion ID: 2602478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Marentez's Expert Testimony

Text: Raymond E. Anderson, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist, appeared on behalf of Marentez. His written evaluation stated the impression ... that any sexually violent offense would be far less than 50% probable given all the data in this case. In his view, Marentez was a situational rather than a preferential child sexual abuser; his offenses resulted from a failure of control rather than from strong internal direction. He observed, however, that Marentez showed a lack of empathy for his victims similar to that seen in untreated sexual abusers. Marentez should also be more concerned with his involvement in [three] different [offenses] and the implication of this for his social judgment and functioning. At the hearing, Anderson testified consistently with his written evaluation. He opined that Marentez had achieved greater self-restraint and perspective since his incarceration and was less likely to reoffend than 50 percent with or without treatment. He also testified extensively concerning the Static-99 test. He described it as the best actuarial tool for the purpose, but he also emphasized the test's numerous shortcomings, i.e., its results are very weak and inexact; it has no known base rate for sexual recidivism; it gives you a prediction of any sexual offense, not [just] a violent sexual offense; it has overlapping predictors that might produce a falsely high score; and it has not been standardized against a population including Hispanics or Native AmericansMarentez's ethnicity. He also stated that it was improper to supplement the variables contained in the Static-99 with additional variables to adjust the actuarial prediction, because the additional variables may be intercorrelated with those already present in this test such that they would already be accounted for in the original prediction. He explained that most people believe that the actuarial [test] should be used in tandem with clinical prediction. With regard to Marentez, he observed, I don't think the two [actuarial prediction and clinical judgment] taken together can add up to his being more likely than not to reoffend. William Vicary, M.D., a psychiatrist, also prepared a written evaluation for the defense. He found the case relatively close, noting that reasonable experts could arrive at different conclusions. He concluded that Marentez suffered from pedophilia and other mental disorders but was not more likely than not to reoffend as a result. Vicary utilized the RRASOR (rapid risk assessment of sex offender recidivisim) predictive test and found that Marentez scored a 3, representing a 37 percent chance of reoffense within 10 years. He observed that Marentez was defensive with regard to his past criminal acts and seemed to have an explanation or excuse for just about everything. He was less than forthright about the molestation offenses and also showed little remorse. He noted, however, that Marentez's current incarceration appeared to have had a significant impact in that he was aware he was facing a possible life sentence for future offenses, that he had a stable employment history and prospects, and that his antisocial traits were likely to diminish with age. At the hearing, Vicary testified consistently with his evaluation that Marentez did not meet the criteria for SVP status. With regard to recidivism, he opined that Marentez will always represent a significant risk of sexually reoffending. The question is, is there enough data to get us to more likely than not. Based on all the data, including the results of the Static-99 test and other actuarial instruments, he disagreed with Glen and Vognsen that Marentez was more likely than not to reoffend. In his view, Marentez's high score on the Static-99 test was a significant element and made it a closer case, but he regarded it as a screening device that must be adjusted by other factors. Marentez was now older, wiser and scared, his crimes were obvious and impulsive and foolhardy, making him less likely to offend than the classic pedophile. Rebecca L. Crandall, M.D., a psychiatrist, prepared a written evaluation concluding that Marentez did not suffer from a diagnosable mental illness and therefore did not meet the SVP criteria. She noted that he denied having sexual fantasies about children, was no longer using drugs, and displayed no antisocial behavior in prison. Crandall noted in her report, however, that Marentez also denied responsibility for two of the molestations, claiming to have no memory of the incident involving the three-year-old boy in the church bathroom, because he was intoxicated with alcohol and cocaine. At the hearing, Crandall reiterated her view that the evidence did not support a diagnosis of pedophilia. In evaluating Marentez, Crandall basically concentrated on [her] area of expertise of psychiatric diagnosis. Although she considered actuarial data, including the factors in the Static-99, she did not conduct any specific actuarial tests. Because of her failure to diagnose a mental disorder, she did not go on to assess whether Marentez was more likely than not to reoffend and offered no opinion on the point.