Sexually Dangerous Person
Case Name: Commonwealth v. D.Experts: 4 psychologistsSummary: A verdict that the respondent was not SDP was obtained after trial. The significant part of this trial was the defense's ability to change the opinion of one of the Commonwealth's experts and undermine during cross the opinion of the one remaining expert.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. J.Experts: 5 psychologistsSummary: A verdict of not sexually dangerous was returned by the court in this matter. The defense consisted of demonstrating the recent non-violent aspect of the respondent's sexual behavior. The defense argued that although there is a risk of reoffense, given the lower likelihood of harm commitment was not justified.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. K.Experts: 6 psychologistsSummary: A verdict that the defendant was not SDP was obtained by utilizing multiple defense witnesses, treatment records, and excerpts of the videotape of the polygraph examination of the defendant. This demonstrated that the defendant was not SDP in spite of a previous sex crime conviction, a parole warning, and having been found in violation of parole.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. T.Experts: 6 psychologistsSummary: A verdict that the defendant was not SDP was obtained by stressing treatment and other positive and non-antisocial behavior in presenting four psychologists who testified the defendant was not a SDP. The defense also had excluded unproven charges and prove other mitigating facts.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. W.Experts: 6 psychologists, treating medical doctorSummary: A verdict that the defendant was not SDP was obtained by stressing the physical limitations of the defendant and discrediting Commonwealth's expert due to their lack of knowledge of the facts. The defense also kept out substantial facts of the underlying crimes given a verdict in the underlying case made it impossible to determine what facts supported each verdict.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. S.Experts: 6 psychologistsSummary: A verdict that the defendant was not SDP was obtained by demonstrating that although the underlying crime was violent, the sum total of the evidence failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a SDP.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. J.Experts: 6 psychologistsSummary: A verdict that the defendant was not SDP was obtained by demonstrating that the defendant's repeated offending could be attributed to the defendant's unrelated and now treated mental illness. Strong family support and medical treatment made commitment unnecessary.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. M.Experts: 4 psychologists, psychiatristSummary: This case was fully tried, but was dismissed prior to verdict on the grounds of a procedural defect. The Commonwealth appealed and the decision was upheld by the Supreme Judicial Court.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. J.Experts: 5 psychologistsSummary: A verdict of not sexually dangerous was returned by the court in this matter. The defense consisted of demonstrating the recent non-violent aspect of the respondent's sexual behavior. The defense argued that although there is a risk of reoffense, given the lower likelihood of harm commitment was not justified.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. K.Experts: 6 psychologistsSummary: A verdict that the defendant was not SDP was obtained by utilizing multiple defense witnesses, treatment records, and excerpts of the videotape of the polygraph examination of the defendant. This demonstrated that the defendant was not SDP in spite of a previous sex crime conviction, a parole warning, and having been found in violation of parole.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. T.Experts: 6 psychologistsSummary: A verdict that the defendant was not SDP was obtained by stressing treatment and other positive and non-antisocial behavior in presenting four psychologists who testified the defendant was not a SDP. The defense also had excluded unproven charges and prove other mitigating facts.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. W.Experts: 6 psychologists, treating medical doctorSummary: A verdict that the defendant was not SDP was obtained by stressing the physical limitations of the defendant and discrediting Commonwealth's expert due to their lack of knowledge of the facts. The defense also kept out substantial facts of the underlying crimes given a verdict in the underlying case made it impossible to determine what facts supported each verdict.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. S.Experts: 6 psychologistsSummary: A verdict that the defendant was not SDP was obtained by demonstrating that although the underlying crime was violent, the sum total of the evidence failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a SDP.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. J.Experts: 6 psychologistsSummary: A verdict that the defendant was not SDP was obtained by demonstrating that the defendant's repeated offending could be attributed to the defendant's unrelated and now treated mental illness. Strong family support and medical treatment made commitment unnecessary.
Case Name: Commonwealth v. M.Experts: 4 psychologists, psychiatristSummary: This case was fully tried, but was dismissed prior to verdict on the grounds of a procedural defect. The Commonwealth appealed and the decision was upheld by the Supreme Judicial Court.