Opinion ID: 162885
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Merits of the District Court's Finding of Dangerousness

Text: 42 Having resolved the two threshold issues of the applicable standard of review and evidentiary burden, we turn to the merits of the district court's application of § 4243 to Mr. Gilgert's case. Applying the proper standard of review and evidentiary burden, the question on the merits is whether the district court clearly erred in finding that Mr. Gilgert failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person under § 4243(e). 43 A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court, on [review of] the entire record, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. De la Cruz-Tapia, 162 F.3d 1275, 1277 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). On clear error review, our role is not to re-weigh the evidence; rather, our review of the district court's finding is significantly deferential. Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623, 113 S.Ct. 2264, 124 L.Ed.2d 539 (1993). 44 Mr. Gilgert argues that the district court erred because the evidence shows almost uniformly that he is not violent and his release would not present a danger to people or property. Aplt's Br. at 12. In response to the district court's reliance on the expert reports in concluding that Mr. Gilgert had failed to satisfy the statutory standard, Mr. Gilgert contends that [t]he common theme throughout the reports is that making threats is the way Mr. Gilgert attempts to get help when his medication is not properly adjusted, rather than an actual indication of an intent to take action. Id. at 13. 45 Mr. Gilgert's arguments fail to recognize both that the statute places the evidentiary burden on him and that on clear error review, our role is not to re-weigh the evidence. Far from concluding that the district court erred, we conclude that the district court's finding was amply supported. In his forensic evaluation report, Dr. Ihle concluded that Mr. Gilgert engages in behavior that may be threatening to others, Rec vol. IV, def's ex. C, at 13, that Mr. Gilgert's use of alcohol and illicit substances may increase his degree of danger to others or property, id. at 14, and that Mr. Gilgert's combination of persecutory and grandiose delusions with anger may predispose [him] to violence. Id. at 13. After reviewing Mr. Gilgert's medical records, interviewing him, and observing him on his ward, the three clinical professionals on the risk assessment panel charged specifically with assessing the risks associated with Mr. Gilgert's possible release concluded that he remains acutely psychotic and that his release would [create] a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another due to his present mental disease or defect. Rec. vol. IV, def's ex. D, at 5. Moreover, the risk assessment panel found that Mr. Gilgert is in need of continued inpatient mental health care at the present time. Id. 46 Mr. Gilgert's counsel placed no evidence to the contrary into evidence and, as his counsel acknowledged at oral argument, did not attempt to impeach through cross-examination the authors of the four reports placed in evidence, despite the opportunity to do so. The district court, based on its own observation of Mr. Gilgert, and on its review of the stipulated reports, reached the same conclusion as the risk assessment panel. 47 We emphasize that in no respect do we wish to stigmatize the many members of our society who grapple with mental health issues. Such stigma was emblematic of centuries of discrimination against the mentally ill that our nation has, for the most part, fortunately outgrown. A finding of insanity, or even one of acutely delusional behavior, does not, without more, establish that a person is dangerous to the community. 48 Nonetheless, the record in this case compels us to hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Mr. Gilgert failed to meet his burden to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that his release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(e). See Steil, 916 F.2d at 488 (affirming finding of dangerousness where medical health professionals have found [the defendant] mentally ill and dangerous, and there is no medical opinion to the contrary in the record before us) (emphasis added). Not only are we not left with a firm and definite conviction that the district court erred, De la Cruz-Tapia, 162 F.3d at 1277, but we do not see how the district court could have ruled otherwise, given the lack of any professional medical opinion in the record that Mr. Gilgert's release would not present a danger to the community.