Rick v. Harpstead

Background

A Minnesota court civilly committed Darrin Scott Rick as a sexually dangerous person in 2004, and he remained confined in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. The commitment decision relied in part on expert opinions that Rick had a moderate risk of reoffending and that his failure to complete sex-offender treatment increased that risk. The state court also considered testimony from a retained expert who supported commitment. The case was described as very close.

After Rick’s commitment, research changed the estimated sexual-recidivism rates for Minnesota offenders. A 2012 study reported substantially lower rates than those reflected in the risk-assessment tool used at Rick’s commitment. A 2009 study found that dropping out of sex-offender treatment did not significantly increase recidivism risk. In 2019, forensic psychologist Dr. Amy Phenix concluded that the earlier actuarial tools had overstated Rick’s risk. The two court-appointed psychologists who had testified in support of commitment, Drs. Thomas Alberg and Roger Sweet, later concluded that Rick did not meet the statutory commitment criteria in 2004.

Habeas proceedings

Rick petitioned for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that reliance on now-discredited risk-assessment evidence and expert opinions violated due process and made his commitment a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Hennepin County, which defended the commitment order on the named respondent’s behalf, argued that the petition was barred by the federal habeas statute of limitations.

The court had previously ruled that Rick could attempt to use the actual-innocence exception to overcome the filing deadline. That exception requires new, reliable evidence showing that it is more likely than not that no reasonable jurist would have ordered the person’s civil commitment. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz held a three-day evidentiary hearing and recommended granting the petition. Hennepin County objected to his findings about the reliability of the studies, the credibility of the witnesses, and the effect of the changed expert opinions on the original commitment decision.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently, including factual and credibility findings. It concluded that the 2009 and 2012 studies were reliable for purposes of the actual-innocence exception. The court considered their limitations but noted that they were written by recognized researchers, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and supported by evidence that Minnesota sexual-recidivism rates had declined. The court also found Dr. Phenix’s testimony consistent with her report and credible.

The court found Drs. Alberg and Sweet credible and persuasive. Both had changed their opinions after reviewing later research and concluded that Rick did not meet the commitment criteria in 2004. The court found Dr. James Alsdurf’s contrary testimony less persuasive, in part because he did not adequately address the studies concerning treatment completion and recidivism. The court found Dr. Harry Hoberman credible but not more persuasive than Drs. Alberg and Sweet on the relevant issues.

Based on the new research and the two court-appointed examiners’ changed opinions, the court held that it was more likely than not that no reasonable jurist would have ordered Rick’s commitment in 2004. It therefore held that the actual-innocence exception applied and reached Rick’s due-process claim.

On the merits, the court concluded that the original proceeding was fundamentally unfair. The 2004 state court had relied substantially on Rick’s moderate risk assessment, his failure to complete treatment, and the opinions of Drs. Alberg and Sweet. Their later opinions undermined important parts of that evidence. Given how close the case had been, the court determined that it was more likely than not that no reasonable jurist, considering the new reliable evidence, would have found by clear and convincing evidence that Rick met the commitment standard. The court held that the alleged errors fatally infected the commitment proceeding.

Disposition

Judge Nancy E. Brasel overruled Hennepin County’s objection, accepted the Report and Recommendation, and granted Rick’s Second Amended Petition under § 2254. The order directed the respondent to release Rick from detention and confinement in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and stated that judgment should be entered accordingly.