Rick v. Harpstead
| Decision Date | 22 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 19-cv-02827-NEB-DTS |
| Parties | Rick v. Harpstead |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
In what the parties agree was a very close case, a Minnesota court civilly committed Petitioner Darrin Scott Rick as a sexually dangerous person in 2004. He has been a patient of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”) ever since. In 2019, Rick petitioned for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, seeking his release from custody based on newly discovered evidence. After holding an evidentiary hearing on the petition, United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Rick's petition. (ECF No. 94 (“R&R”).) Hennepin County[1] objects to the R&R. (ECF No. 100 (“Obj.”).) After a de novo review, the Court overrules the objection, accepts the R&R, and grants the petition.
The R&R details the facts and procedural history of the case. (R&R at 2-10.) The Court lays out the facts necessary for context.[2]
Criminal conviction. In 1993, Rick pled guilty to four counts of criminal sexual conduct involving minors and was sentenced to 180 months in prison. In re Civ. Commitment of Rick No. A06-1621, 2007 WL 333885, at *1 (Minn.Ct.App. Feb. 6 2007). While in prison, Rick participated in but eventually withdrew from sex-offender treatment. (R&R at 2.) After the Minnesota Department of Corrections (“DOC”) declined to recommend Rick for civil commitment, Hennepin County began its own civil commitment proceedings. (Id.)
2004 commitment trial. During Rick's civil-commitment trial, court-appointed expert psychologists Dr. Thomas Alberg and Dr. Roger Sweet testified that Rick met Minnesota's statutory definition for a “sexually dangerous person” (“SDP”).[3] (Id. at 3.) But they also concluded that the MSOP program was unnecessary for Rick's treatment. (Id. at 3-4.) In their opinions, less-restrictive alternatives would suffice. (Id.) The DOC's Civil Commitment Review Coordinator testified that she believed Rick should not be civilly committed. (Id. at 4 (citing Ex 1[4] at 10).) Contradictory testimony came from Hennepin County's retained psychologist Dr. James Alsdurf, who testified that the only treatment appropriate for Rick was at the MSOP. (Id. at 4.) The trial court found that Rick's “moderate risk of recidivism combined with not completing sex offender treatment . . . proved by clear and convincing evidence that there is a likelihood of [Rick] reoffending.” (Id. at 5; see Ex. 1 at 6-7, 11, 17.) The trial court then determined that Rick met the criteria for commitment to the MSOP. (Ex. 1 at 14.) But the court stayed Rick's commitment so long as Rick complied with certain conditions, including completing an outpatient sex-offender treatment program. (Id.) Hennepin County appealed and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the stay, both because Hennepin County had not agreed to the stay as required by law, and because record evidence did not establish that an outpatient treatment program had accepted Rick. (R&R at 5.)
2006 commitment hearing. On remand, the trial court held a hearing at which it considered less restrictive treatment alternatives than commitment for Rick. (Id. at 6.) This time, the evidence showed that an outpatient treatment program had accepted Rick, but Dakota County (the county in which Rick planned to live) required Rick to live in a halfway house for 90 days. (Id.) The DOC had approved Rick for only a 60-day stay in a halfway house, and the house refused to accept Rick as a “private pay” client for the remaining 30 days. (Id. at 6-7.) Because the DOC had not approved funding for the full 90 days, the court found that Rick had not shown that a less-restrictive plan was “presently available.” (Id. at 7.) On these slim margins, the court committed Rick to the MSOP indefinitely. (Id.) Rick sought post-commitment relief, but he did not succeed. (Id. (citing Rick, 2007 WL 333885).)
New evidence. At the time of Rick's commitment in 2004, the DOC used an actuarial sexual-recidivism risk-assessment tool called the Minnesota Sex Offender Risk Assessment Tool-Revised (“MnSOST-R”). (Ex. 7 at 3.) MnSOST-R predicted that low-risk offenders had a six-year recidivism rate of 12% and moderate-risk offenders had a six- year recidivism rate of 25%. (Id. at 4.) In 2012, new data changed those predictions significantly. Research on Minnesota sex offenders released from the DOC between 2003 and 2006 concluded that the recidivism rate for low-risk offenders was 3% (not 12%), and that the recidivism rate for moderate-risk offenders was 6% (not 25%). (Id. at 4 n.2 ().) Other new research showed that a failure to complete sex-offender treatment did not increase recidivism. (Id. at 7-8 (citing G. Duwe & R. A. Goldman, The Impact of Prison-Based Treatment on Sex Offender Recidivism: Evidence from Minnesota, Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(3), 279-307 (2009) (“2009 Study”)).)
In 2019, Rick's counsel consulted forensic psychologist Dr. Amy Phenix, who evaluated Rick, reviewed his commitment case, and determined that the actuarial data used to commit Rick was no longer scientifically reliable. (R&R at 7; see generally Ex. 7.)
Dr. Phenix concluded that although the actuarial risk-assessment tools used at the time of Rick's commitment “were appropriate for that period in time,” later research showed that the tools overestimated the general probability of sex-offender recidivism and thus overestimated Rick's risk of recidivism as well. (R&R at 8; Ex. 7 at 6-8.) Applying this new research, Dr. Phenix concluded that Rick's current risk of recidivism was between 5.6% and 6.8% in five years. (Ex. 7 at 22, 26.)
Drs. Alberg and Sweet, who had testified in support of Rick's commitment, reviewed Dr. Phenix's report. They concluded that, contrary to their testimony at Rick's commitment trial, Rick did not meet the statutory criteria for commitment in 2004. (Exs. 4, 6.) Dr. Alberg stated that “Rick's commitment as an SDP was inappropriate in 2004.” (Ex. 4 at 2.) Dr. Sweet similarly stated that “Rick did not meet the statutory criteria necessary for commitment” as an SDP in 2004. (Ex. 6 at 4 (emphasis omitted).)
Habeas petition. Before the Court is Rick's petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Rick contends that his commitment is a fundamental miscarriage of justice because the Minnesota court relied on now-discredited risk- assessment evidence and expert opinions, thus violating his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 45 (“2d Am. Pet.”) at 3-4.) Hennepin County moved to dismiss the operative petition as barred by AEDPA's statute of limitations. (R&R at 12-13.) Judge Schultz recommended that the motion be denied. (Id.) Over the County's objection, this Court accepted Judge Schultz's report and recommendation and ordered a hearing on the issue of whether Rick satisfied the actual-innocence exception to overcome AEDPA's statute of limitations. Rick v. Harpstead, 564 F.Supp.3d 771, 787- 88 (D. Minn. 2021). If Rick satisfied the actual-innocence exception, Judge Schultz was to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of Rick's due-process claim. Id. The parties agreed to present both the actual-innocence issue and the merits of the petition at the same hearing. (R&R at 14.)
Habeas hearing. In December 2021, Judge Schultz held a three-day evidentiary hearing at which five witnesses testified and 21 exhibits were presented. (Id. at 14-22.) Drs. Phenix, Sweet, and Alberg testified on Rick's behalf. (Id. at 14-18.) Hennepin County called Dr. Alsdurf and forensic psychologist Dr. Harry Hoberman. (Id. at 19-22.) Dr. Hoberman was not involved in Rick's 2004 commitment proceedings; he testified about whether the evidence on which Rick's petition was based is reliable under the actual- innocence gateway test. (Id. at 20-21.)
The R&R. Having heard and seen the evidence, Judge Schultz in the R&R concluded that Dr. Phenix's hearing testimony matched her 2019 report and that the testimony of Drs. Phenix, Sweet, and Alberg was credible.[5] (Id. at 14-17.) Judge Schultz determined that Drs. Sweet and Alberg “recanted their 2004 opinions that Rick met the criteria to be civilly committed.” (Id. at 19.) Judge Schultz also found Dr. Alsdurf's testimony “less credible than Drs. Sweet and Alberg regarding whether Rick met the SDP criteria in 2004.” (Id. at 20.) He found Dr. Hoberman credible but less persuasive, and he concluded that Dr. Hoberman's testimony about sex-offender recidivism research “was not directly germane to the precise legal issues” at hand. (Id. at 22.)
Judge Schultz determined that Rick satisfied the actual-innocence exception to AEDPA's statute of limitations because he “demonstrated that the research and examiners' recantations are new and reliable evidence and that it is more likely than not that no reasonable jurist would have civilly committed Rick.” (Id. at 1.) As for Rick's due- process claim, Judge Schultz concluded that Rick established that “the state court's substantial reliance on the court-appointed examiners' now-recanted testimony rendered his trial fundamentally unfair and Rick's commitment a miscarriage of justice.” (Id.) Thus, a reasonable probability existed that “the reliance placed on the now-recanted opinions affected the outcome of Rick's commitment trial because it is unlikely a reasonable jurist considering the new evidence would commit Rick.” (Id. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial