Opinion ID: 2602478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Superior Court's Probable Cause Ruling

Text: During argument, the court stated that it believed that the evidence established that Marentez suffered from pedophilia that affected his volitional or emotional capacity. It was concerned, however, with the validity of the expert opinions given their reliance on the Static-99 statistical instrument. The court observed that in previous cases, State's experts have testified that the most relevant opinions are based upon clinical judgement informed by statistical evidence[.] The court noted that in this case [o]ne of the State's experts has testified that her opinion is based only on the statistical evidence, namely the Static-99, and the State's second witness testified that his opinion was based on the results of Stat[ic]-99 basically with a `dash of clinical judgment.' The court opined that if a witness is relying on the statistical evidence to voice an opinion and the statistical evidence doesn't with reasonable certainty predict an individual respondent's recidivistic likelihood, then it seems to me that opinion is worthless for purposes of establishing probable cause. The court stated that even if the Static-99 test were reliable enough, it doesn't take into account the dynamic factors, which are equally important in determining whether a person, even a pedophile or any other diagnosed mental disorder is ... more likely than not ... to reoffend. The court considered Anderson's evidence as impeaching the certainty of the state's witnesses, which were based only on [actuarial test results]. The court also commented on the credibility of the experts. In regards to Glen's testimony, the court noted that she doesn't routinely do forensic cases. Of Vognsen, it observed: His demeanor on the witness stand was ... such as to lead me to believe that he really is not particularly confident of his answers to the questions about statistical evidence. In applying a `dash of clinical judgment' to the results of the Static-99 test, [Vognsen] seems in his report and in his testimony to have reacted quite subjectively. It also commented on Vognsen's apparent dislike of Marentez. In contrast, the court noted that it was extraordinarily impressed with [Anderson's] knowledge of statistics and the method in which statisticsthe Static-99 ... and other tests were devised. The court then issued its probable cause ruling: I am basing this decision on a reasonable cause standard ... [and] on my view of the demeanor of the witnesses, the manner in which they testified, the certainty with which they had command of the underlying information upon which they based the decision, and also on the issues of the other factors which go into credibility. [¶] In this case I do believe that Dr. Glen in the end based her opinion upon Static-99 alone because that's what she said. I do believe that while she did consider clinical matters, in the end, when asked she stated her opinion was based on the Static-99, which we know is not reliable enough according to accepted scientific principles to establish that this individual is more likely than not to commit a sexually violent offense. [¶] With regard to Dr. Vognsen, I said earlier his testimony in court showed a lack of command of the statistical information as compared to Dr. Anderson's. Again, he said his reliance was on Static-99. The import of his testimony was that Static-99 was the basis of his opinion with a dash of clinical judgment. Again, Static-99, as I said, isn't good enough. [¶] ... [¶] Dr. Anderson's testimony with regard to the likelihood of reoffense was validated to some extent by the psychological testing that he gave. Overall, it's the Court's view that Dr. Anderson has far more experience based on evidence presented in administering this kind of testing and dealing with sexual offenders both on a clinical basis and on a research basis, that his testimony was carefully thought out and considered, which I did not find to be the case with the manner in which the two witnesses for [the district attorney] testified. [¶] Given that and the testimony of Dr. Vicary on the risk of reoffense, the Court does believe Dr. Vicary. This is a close case, but the Court does not find that the evidence supports a reasonable belief that Mr. Marentez is more likely than not to reoffend in a sexually violent manner[.] On that basis the superior court dismissed the petition to commit Marentez as an SVP. The district attorney petitioned for a writ of mandate. A divided Court of Appeal determined that the superior court erred in rejecting outright evidence of the Static-99 results for purposes of Vognsen's testimony. [2] According to the majority, the superior court improperly applied the standard of admitting new scientificevidence to a case involving psychiatric evaluation. (See People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240; Frye v. United States (D.C.Cir.1923) 293 F. 1013.) [3] Based on its own independent review of the evidence it concluded that there was ample rational basis for a reasonable person to assume the possibility that it is likely Marentez will engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior if released. [4] In reaching this decision, the majority noted that it need not resolve the question of the correct definition of likely in this case because the evidence at bar supports a finding of probable cause under either a `substantial' or `greater than 50 percent' standard. It issued the writ, ordering the superior court to reinstate the petition, enter a finding of probable cause, and set the matter for trial. The dissent disagreed, concluding that [t]he assertion that the superior court judge excluded evidence of the Static-99 test ... is not supported by the record. Instead, in determining that the district attorney's experts were unpersuasive because they relied either solely or almost solely on the Static-99 test, the superior court made specific factual findings that were dispositive on the issue of reoffense. We granted review, and now turn to a determination of the issues in this case.