U.S. v. Wetmore

• Decision Date: 02 March 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 07–12058–PBS.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of Americav.Joel WETMORE, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

766 F.Supp.2d 319

UNITED STATES of America

v.Joel WETMORE, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 07–12058–PBS.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

March 2, 2011.

Mark J. Grady, Eve A. Piemonte–Stacey, Mark T. Quinlivan, Rachael S. Rollins, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for Petitioner.Harry L. Miles, Green, Miles, Lipton, White & Fitz–Gibbon, Northampton, MA, for Respondent.Timothy G. Watkins, Federal Public Defender Office, Boston, MA, for Andrew M. Swarm.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

SARIS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The United States seeks to civilly commit Respondent Joel Wetmore (“Wetmore”) as a “sexually dangerous person” under Section 302(4) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109–248, Title 111, § 302(4), 120 Stat. 587, 620–22 (2006), codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 4247–4248.

Two expert witnesses—both licensed psychologists-testified at the trial. The court—appointed expert, Robert Prentky, Ph.D., was the first witness; both sides agreed on his appointment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247. Amy Phenix, Ph.D., testified as the government's expert witness.¹ Mr. Wetmore did not offer expert testimony. Both Dr. Prentky and Dr. Phenix testified that, in their opinion, Mr. Wetmore met the statutory definition of a “sexually dangerous person.”

The Court also heard testimony from four additional witnesses called by the government: (1) Thomas J. Russell, Senior Officer Specialist at FMC–Devens; (2) Cheryl A. Renaud, Sex Offender Management Program Coordinator and Sex Offender Treatment Program Coordinator at FMC–Devens; (3) Roberto Romero, and inmate at FMC–Devens; and (4) David DiMeo, an inmate at FMC–Devens. In addition to his own testimony, the respondent introduced testimony from five witnesses: (1) Daniel P. Kelly, a federal probation officer in Maine; (2) Carlos Quiles, a correctional counselor at FMC–Devens; (3) John Rankin, an inmate at FMC–Devens; (4) Louise K. Wetmore, the respondent's mother; and (5) Neal B. Wetmore, the respondent's brother.

After a review of the evidence, the Court finds that Mr. Wetmore is a sexually dangerous person who suffers from the serious mental disorders of pedophilia and paraphilia not otherwise specified, characterized by hebephilia, as a result of which Mr. Wetmore would, if released, have serious difficulty refraining from molesting children. After an evidentiary hearing held pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d), the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Personal History ²

Mr. Wetmore, born on March 18, 1956, had a normal childhood in a functional family. There is no record of his being a victim of child abuse or bullying. Mr. Wetmore reported suffering from emotional problems in his youth, but did not elaborate on the nature or scope of these problems. He experienced enuresis, or uncontrolled urination, through age twelve. Mr. Wetmore had some difficulty in school and was enrolled in special education programs from the seventh through ninth grades, but has no history of academic failure. He reported a self-diagnosis of dyslexia. He has no history of abusing alcohol or drugs, aside from occasional recreational use of marijuana. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 36–44, July 22, 2010.)

Mr. Wetmore identifies as homosexual. He has maintained few normal adult relationships. He twice became involved with adult women, once during his mid-twenties and again at the age of twenty-seven, but on both occasions he failed to reach or maintain sexual arousal. ( Id. at 45–46.) In 1999, when he was forty-three years old, Mr. Wetmore carried on a relationship with “Jesse,” a twenty-four year old man who was employed at the auto repair shop that Mr. Wetmore owned. According to Mr. Wetmore, this was not a “true” relationship, but the closest he has come to a “legal” one. ( Id. at 62–63.)

During his adult life, Mr. Wetmore has worked and engaged in various activities that put him in contact with children. Besides operating his auto repair shop, Mr. Wetmore spent time as a Scoutmaster and a Big Brother. He also engaged in group religious activities such as scripture study. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 190, July 23, 2010.)

Mr. Wetmore remains on good terms with his family and speaks highly of his siblings, each of whom is married and leads an apparently normal and stable adult life. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 36, 38–39.)

B. Offense History, Convictions, and Treatment

Mr. Wetmore's history of sexually molesting boys between the ages of eleven and fifteen is lengthy. The great majority of the eleven incidents of molestation that Mr. Wetmore has self-reported involved oral sexual contact. Some, but not all, of these incidents resulted in convictions. His offense history will be discussed chronologically.

Mr. Wetmore's sexual interest in young boys began when he was eleven years old. At that age he had his first sexual experience, which involved brief sexual contact with a ten year-old boy. ( Id. at 46.) At age fifteen, Mr. Wetmore began what would be a nearly decade-long, periodic sexual relationship with another boy who was age twelve when the affair began. This child later introduced Mr. Wetmore to a variety of other young boys—most of them about fourteen years old—at a cabin located on Mr. Wetmore's parent's property. Mr. Wetmore referred to this place as “the camp.”

Mr. Wetmore, who was in his late teens by this time, engaged in sexual activity with a number of boys at the camp. From this period until Mr. Wetmore was about twenty-four, he engaged in “gradual grooming” of young boys, gaining their trust by degrees and eventually molesting them. One such instance involved an eleven year-old boy, “W.” Mr. Wetmore's relationship with “W” lasted three to four years and involved fondling and oral sex. The molestations of “W” did not result in a criminal conviction.

Mr. Wetmore's first conviction came on August 5, 1981, when he was found guilty of unlawful sexual contact with a twelve year-old boy, “M,” whom he had fondled at the camp on July 5, 1980 in Maine. “M” reported the incident to his parents. Mr. Wetmore was twenty-four at the time of the offense. After a 30–day suspended sentence, Mr. Wetmore was on probation for a period of six months and moved to Texas to volunteer with a religious group.

Eventually, Mr. Wetmore returned to Maine, but continued volunteering with this religious group. On May 29, 1987, at the age of 30, he was convicted of gross sexual misconduct with “R,” a twelve year-old boy. Mr. Wetmore met “R” one year earlier through this religious group, when the boy was eleven years old. Mr. Wetmore was convicted of conduct involving fondling and oral sex. Mr. Wetmore also reported that he attempted to engage in anal sex with “R” on one occasion. He received an eighteen-year sentence, with fourteen years to serve and the remainder suspended. ( Id. at 53–56; see also Gov't Ex. 2.)

While in prison, Mr. Wetmore learned about the availability of child pornography on the Internet. He apparently took comfort in learning that he would be able to gratify his sexual urges without physically touching children. Accordingly, Mr. Wetmore set up rules for himself: he would not produce but would consume child pornography; and he would masturbate to this material, but would not assault children, avoiding places where minors gather. ( Id. at 59–61.)

Upon his release in 1995, Mr. Wetmore began a period of six years of probation, as a condition of which Mr. Wetmore was to have no contact whatsoever with children under sixteen years of age. For the most part, in the years after his release, Mr. Wetmore masturbated at least once every evening while looking at child pornography. ( Id. at 97–98.) It was during this period that he operated an auto repair shop and became involved with twenty-four year-old named “Jesse.”

During the same period, Mr. Wetmore also employed a fifteen year-old boy, “R.F.,” at the auto shop. In 1999, “R.F.” reported that Mr. Wetmore had performed oral sex on him, and another boy reported seeing child pornography on a computer owned by Mr. Wetmore. These reports led to an investigation of Mr. Wetmore. Ultimately, in 2000, Mr. Wetmore was indicted by a federal grand jury for the possession and receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, and was later sentenced to eighty-seven months of incarceration and five years of supervised release. According to the pre-sentence investigation, there were approximately 2,000 images of child pornography on the seized computer, some of which depicted pre-pubescent children engaging in sex and sado-masochism. The vast majority of the images depicted adolescent boys, some appearing as young as seven years old. ( Id. at 72.) Mr. Wetmore was not convicted of any crime based upon his sexual contact with “R.F.”

Despite this extensive offense and conviction history, Mr. Wetmore has not received sex offender treatment for any meaningful period of time. Following his 1981 conviction, Mr. Wetmore received a thirty-day suspended sentence and was ordered to complete six months of sexual and psychiatric therapy while on probation. He met with a therapist in Texas, where he had moved, but reported to that provider that the incident leading to his conviction was an isolated one and did not stem from any recurring problem. The therapist subsequently told Mr. Wetmore “There's nothing I can do for you.” ( Id. at 51.) Following his 1987 conviction and the approximately eight-year prison sentence that accompanied it, Mr. Wetmore was not required to undergo treatment of any kind. Upon his release in 1995 he was assigned to a therapist, but this person allegedly told Mr. Wetmore that he could be of no help. Finally, following his 2000 conviction, Mr. Wetmore began a treatment program at the Downeast Correctional Facility in Maine. However, this ended abruptly when Mr. Wetmore was transferred after a short time to the Federal Correctional...