Opinion ID: 2602478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of the District Attorney's Experts

Text: The district attorney's first expert, Barrie Glen, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist, prepared a written report concluding that Marentez had been convicted of a statutorily defined qualifying offense involving two victims, had the qualifying mental disorder pedophilia, and was likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior on his release. For the latter determination, she relied, in her initial report, on several risk factors. She noted his lack of insight into his actions, lack of empathy for others, and long history of substance abuse. She also observed that his last qualifying offense was committed while he was on parole, and that he lived in a residence where children were present, in violation of the terms of his parole. He denied committing sexual offenses, blaming his incarceration on drug use. He had never undergone sex offender treatment and had no positive plans for dealing with his sexual urges toward children or with his substance abuse. In her initial report, Glen did not define the term likely and did not give any specific probability of the likelihood of reoffense. In a supplemental report, Glen confirmed her prior assessment, adding that her conclusion was supported by Marentez's score on a new actuarial instrument, the Static-99 test, which analyzes the potential for risk of reoffense on the basis of certain variables, including age, marital status, number of criminal offenses committed, gender of the victims, whether the victims were strangers or relatives, and whether the most recent sex offense involved the use of violence. Marentez's score of 6 on the Static-99 test put him in the high risk category for reoffense, with a 52 percent minimum risk of reoffense within 15 years. Glen's direct testimony at the probable cause hearing focused on disputing the judgment of Marentez's expert witnesses. Specifically, she challenged their reliance on various mitigating factors and their dependence on self-reporting by Marentez. She also reiterated the findings contained in her supplemental report, suggesting that when you give [Marentez] the predictor instrument he comes out over 50 percent, and when you start looking at the other risk factors, he looks like he has enough of them [so that] he is well over 50 percent. At the close of cross-examination she stated that I didn't rely on clinical judgment in this case because [h]e fits in very well with actuarial stuff. When asked by the court to clarify her previous statement, she stated, I am a clinician; so of course my clinical judgment is in there. She explained that she had meant that it was not necessary to go outside any sort of actuarial data and just completely rely on clinical judgment. Jack Vognsen, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist, also prepared a written evaluation for the prosecution. He, too, emphasized Marentez's record of sexual crimes against children and his child-related parole violations. Indeed, Marentez had explained that he took on the relationship with his latest victim in order to prove to the court that the prohibition against being around children was unnecessary. Vognsen observed that Marentez had us[ed] his position as a trusting, caregiving adult to make his victims cooperate in sexual conduct. Although Marentez complained that he had not been offered sex offense counseling, he asserted that I need no therapy. Similarly, although he blamed substance abuse for his mishaps, he indicated no interest in drug abuse counseling, boasting I am my only rehab. He did not accept blame for his sexual offenses, either denying them or stating that he could not remember whether he had committed the offense because he was under the influence of alcohol and drugs. He showed little self-awareness: Mr. Marentez does not appear to listen to himself, and he certainly does not expect his ideas and attitudes to be reasonable. Vognsen reiterated his conclusions in a supplemental report, noting that they were further supported by Marentez's high score on the Static-99 test. At the hearing, he testified that Marentez was unable to control his urges toward children, basing his opinion on past behavior and the fact that Marentez had violated parole conditions by being around children. He referred to the results of the Static-99, conceding that the actuarial test is only moderately reliable as an overall instrument, but observing that it is the best we can come up with.... With a little bit of clinical judgment. Using the Static-99 test and [a] dash of clinical judgment, he estimated Marentez's likelihood of reoffense over a 15-year period at 52 to 55, 57 [percent], something like that.