Court Opinion

ID: 9738648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:59:37.420654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:07.603571
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). I agree with the majority that ch. 975 creates a liberty interest entitled to constitutional protection. Vitek v. Jones, — U.S. —, 100 S. Ct. 1254, 1261, 63 L. Ed.2d 552 (1980). When the court set forth procedural safeguards in Terry I the court believed these procedures were mandated by basic elements of fairness and equity. As Justice Hanley wrote: “Due process basically requires that the state afford the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Terry I, 74 Wis.2d at 495. This court should not now abandon its convictions. This court should continue to require those procedures on the basis of the state statutes and state constitution. See Terry II, 84 Wis.2d 693, 698, 267 N.W.2d 38 (1978) (Abrahamson, J. concurring).1
*484The majority, relying on Greenholtz, adopts a new set of procedural requirements which it now thinks will afford the inmate the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner. The procedure set forth by the court raises more questions than it answers, will stimulate further litigation, and violates due process.
Relying on Greenholtz, the majority abandons the previously adopted requirement that the inmate be advised of the evidentiary material to be considered by the decision maker. Instead the inmate now has to be advised of the factors which will be considered by the decision maker. This change is unwise and unwarranted.
The majority has borrowed the “factor” language from Greenholtz, but in Greenholtz the Nebraska legislature had set forth 14 explicit factors which the decision maker is required to consider as well as one catchall factor, i.e., “whatever factors [it] determines to be relevant.” These legislatively mandated factors were important to the decision of the case because the factors revealed the nature of the decision making process of the Nebraska parole board and the factors were specific enough to provide notice to the inmate for purposes of preparation for the hearing. The factors are set forth as an appendix to the United States Supreme Court opinion. 442 U.S. at 16. In Greenholtz the United States Supreme Court stated that there was no claim that advising the inmate of these factors prejudices the inmate’s ability to prepare adequately for the hearing.
In this case no factors upon which the decision to discharge is to be based are set forth in the Wisconsin statutes, or in the current administrative order or in the majority’s opinion. The majority opinion merely states that the decision to discharge under sec. 975.11 “is a discretionary decision which depends on numerous elements, some of which are factual, but many of which are subjective appraisals by the department. The decision to dis*485charge may be made for several reasons and may involve nothing more than an informed prediction as to what would best serve to protect the public or promote the welfare of the sex offender.” We can expect litigation on whether the factors set forth by the decision maker in compliance with the majority opinion are relevant to the decision to discharge and are sufficiently specific to enable the inmate to prepare adequately for the hearing.
The majority omits any requirement that the inmate be allowed to view or know of the evidence relied upon by the decision maker, and the inmate is given no opportunity to examine the file or pertinent parts thereof. The majority holds in effect that a decision made largely on the basis of the inmate’s files adequately satisfies due process. However, the United States Supreme Court in Greenholtz and in prior cases2 has indicated that due process may require that some measure be provided to minimize the risk that relevant adverse factual information in the file is inaccurate. In Greenholtz the Nebraska statutes provided that the decision maker had the discretion to make available to the inmate information in his file. The United States Supreme Court commented that the inmates did not challenge this procedure and “apparently are satisfied with the way this provision is administered since there is no issue before us regarding access to their files.” Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 15, n. 7. Yet in this case, unlike in the Greenholtz case, this court has furnished no protection to the inmate to ensure that the file upon which the decision maker relies is accurate.
The majority also abandons the requirement previously stated in Terry I that the decision set forth the evidence relied on by the decision maker. In Greenholtz the *486United States Supreme Court held that the parole authority need not provide a summary of the evidence in its decision. However, as noted previously, in Green-koltz apparently the inmates did have some access to their files so that they could review the evidence. Both before and after the decision, the majority opinion denies the inmate knowledge of the evidence upon which the decision is being based; I believe such denial violates basic concepts of fair play.
At a minimum, I would require the decison maker to set forth the evidence in the decision. I find the following reasoning in the dissenting opinion of Justices Marshall, Brennen and Stevens in Greenholtz persuasive:
“While requiring a summation of the essential evidence might entail some administrative inconvenience, in neither Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, at 489; Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, at 786; nor Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, at 563, 564-565, did the Court find that this factor justified denying a written statement of the essential evidence and the reasons underlying a decision. It simply is not unduly
“ ‘burdensome to give reasons when reasons exist. Whenever an application ... is denied . . . there should be some reason for the decision. It can scarcely be argued that government would be crippled by a requirement that the reason be communicated to the person most directly affected by the government’s action.’ Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 591 (1972) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).
“See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S., at 345-346; SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943). And an inability to provide any reasons suggests that the decision is, in fact, arbitrary.22
“Moreover, considerations identified in Morrissey and Mathews militate in favor of requiring a statement of the essential evidence. Such a requirement would direct the Board’s focus to the relevant statutory criteria and promote more careful consideration of the evidence. It would also enable inmates to detect and correct inaccu*487racies that could have a decisive impact.23 And the obligation to justify a decision publicly would provide the assurance, critical to the appearance of fairness, that the Board’s decision is not capricious. Finally, imposition of this obligation would afford inmates instruction on the measures needed to improve their prison behavior and prospects for parole, a consequence surely consistent with rehabilitative goals.24 Balancing these considerations against the Board’s minimal interest in avoiding this procedure, I am convinced that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the Parole Board to provide inmates a statement of the essential evidence as well as a meaningful explanation of the reasons for denying parole release.
The majority abandons the requirement previously stated in Terry I that the inmate have the opportunity *488to present witnesses and have the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses in the absence of good cause for not allowing confrontation. In Greenholtz the Nebraska board allows an inmate to call witnesses and to be represented by private counsel of his choice; it does not allow the inmate to hear or cross-examine adverse witnesses. 442 U.S. at 5. Although the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “in the absence of exceptional circumstances the prisoner does not have a constitutional right to call witnesses in his behalf . . .” (576 F.2d 1274, 1284 (8th Cir. 1978)), the United States Supreme Court expressly declined to express an opinion as to whether due process required a right to present favorable witnesses or to cross-examine adverse witnesses. 442 U.S. at 16 n. 8. The majority grants the inmate fewer protections than Nebraska does and thus invites further litigation.
The majority also deletes the requirement of “a neutral and detached hearing body” and substitutes “decision maker to be a person not involved in the direct care, treatment or supervision of the sex offender.” The majority’s reason for changing the language is not stated. Perhaps the majority is relying on the Parham case which upheld the Georgia statute which enabled a physician to commit a child. However, in Parham the United States Supreme Court said that the “decision to have a child institutionalized for mental health care is sufficiently great that some kind of inquiry should be made by a ‘neutral factfinder.’ ” 442 U.S. at 606. And in Parham the United States Supreme Court stated that it had “no reason to consider . . . what procedures for review are independently necessary to justify continuing a child’s confinement.” 442 U.S. at 607 n. 15. Although the decision maker need not come from outside the prison or hospital administration, the decision maker must be independent. Vitek v. Jones, — U.S. —, 100 S. Ct. *4891254, 63 L. Ed.2d 552, 48 L.W. 4317, 4321 (March 25, 1980). Our court’s original statement that the decision must be made by a “neutral and detached hearing body” is sound and should be retained. The hearing body can be one or more persons. A neutral and detached decision maker is a minimal requirement of due process. I cannot believe the majority intends to abandon this requirement.
Without carefully comparing the nature of the proceeding before us and those involved in Greenholtz or Parham3 and without carefully considering all of the procedures provided by the Nebraska and Georgia statutes and administrative rules and practices, the majority unwisely abandons its carefully considered position in Terry I.
For the reasons I have set forth I conclude that the procedure set forth by the majority fails to meet minimal due process, fair play requirements. I therefore dissent.

 In State ex rel. Taylor v. Schoen, 273 N.W.2d 612 (Minn. 1978), the Supreme Court of Minnesota required its state’s parole board to follow procedures similar to those required by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex v. Greenholtz, 576 F.2d 1274 (8th Cir. 1978), before the Greenholtz case was reversed by the United States Supreme Court, 442 U.S. 1 (1979). In a later case concerning the availability of habeas corpus, Kelsey v. State, 283 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. 1979), three justices concurred specially to state that the procedures required in Taylor “should be reaffirmed on the basis of our state constitution,” because “the procedures set out in that case are grounded on and, indeed, mandated by basic elements of fairness and equity.” 283 N.W.2d at 896.

 Cf. Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496 (1959); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 785 (1973).

“22 See Hirschkop & Millemann, The Unconstitutionality of Prison Life, 55 Va. L. Rev. 795, 811-812, 839 (1969).

"23 The preprinted list of reasons for denying parole is unlikely to disclose these types of factual errors. Out of 375 inmates denied parole during a 6-month period, the only reason given 285 of them was: ‘Your continued correctional treatment, vocational, educational, or job assignment in the facility will substantially enhance your capacity to lead a law-abiding life when released at a later date.’ App. 40-42. Although the denial forms also include a list of six ‘ [r] ecommendations for correcting deficiencies,’ such as ‘[ejxhibit some responsibility and maturity,’ the evidence at trial showed that all six items were checked on 370 of the 375 forms, regardless of the facts of the particular case. App. 42; Tr. 38-39, 45-46.

“24 See, e.g., cases cited in n. 20, supra; Candarini v. Attorney General of United States, 369 F. Supp. 1132, 1137 (EDNY 1974); Monks v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 58 N.J. 238, 249, 277 A.2d 193, 199 (1971); K. Davis, Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry 126-133 (1969); M. Frankel, Criminal Sentences 40-41 (1972) ; Dawson, The Decision to Grant or Deny Parole: A Study of Parole Criteria in Law and Practice, 1966 Wash. U.L.Q. 243, 302; Comment, 6 St. Mary’s L.J. 478, 487 (1974).’’ 422 U.S. at 39-41.

 This case concerning continuing supervision over adult sex offenders does not necessarily contain similar policy considerations as Parham which concerned commitment of juveniles by a parent or state guardian for mental health care or as Greenholtz which concerned parole. In Wisconsin, another statute (sec. 975.10, Stats.) deals with parole of the sex crimes offender. In Green-holtz, the parole release decision was compared to the initial sentencing procedure. If the discharge of the sex offender is to be compared to the initial commitment as a sex offender, the initial procedure in Wisconsin is a full-fledged adversary proceeding with a right to a jury trial. Sec. 975.06, Stats.