Favorable WI Supreme Court ruling based on state’s falsely inflating recidivism claims

By Gretchen Schuldt . . . The Department of Corrections must turn over a database containing information about sex offenders that a defense lawyer contends could show the state has been overstating how likely sex offenders are to commit future sexual violence, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled, 4-3, Wednesday.

Justice Rebecca F. Dallet‘s opinion for the majority recounts how far DOC officials went to block lawyers for Anthony James Jendusa from getting the information.

Among other things, the Department of Corrections’ legal counsel twice advised its staff not to turn over a database containing information about state sex offenders, despite a subpoena and then a court order requiring the agency to do so, Dallet wrote. A DOC psychologist testified he failed for more than a year to open an email that could potentially undercut his evaluation methods. And a DOC research committee said Jendusa could have the information, but then never provided it.

Dallet was joined in her opinion by Justices Ann Walsh BradleyBrian Hagedorn, and Jill Karofsky. Justice Annette Ziegler dissented, joined by Justices Rebecca Bradley and Patience Roggensack.

Ziegler said state statute prohibited Jendusa from having access to the database because “neither the State nor Jendusa claimed they would introduce the raw data at trial.”

Jendusa contends the database of Wisconsin offenders is key to demonstrating that Christopher Tyre, a DOC psychologist, used the wrong base from which to calculate the chances of repeated sexual violence.

The lawyers contend that using a base of Wisconsin offenders, rather than Canadian and Danish offenders, in a risk assessment tool used by the state, could significantly reduce the reoffense likelihood scored by his client Jendusa.

In fact, when Tyre finally gave a summary of the data in the email, the “preliminary (Wisconsin) base rate was roughly one-third of the base rate he relied on to predict Jendusa’s recidivism risk,” Dallet wrote.

Read the remainder of the piece here at Urban Milwaukee.

See the decision here.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.


Viewing 5 reply threads
  • Author
    • #82033 Reply
      Perry P.

      You can bet that if it comes to them having to actually turn over what they HAD…they won’t have it anymore, and claim: ‘Accidental Deletion of Old Archived Files!’ Watch and see if it actually comes to that…which it must might.
      Nuff Said!

    • #82069 Reply
      A Mistake They Made

      SCOTUS used false data from a magazine to determine the fate of a million American citizens we have this proof why have we not begun a class action law suite against the USA and put this to rest once and for all? Once they are made to admit this error the rest will fall down like a house of cards.

      • #82106 Reply

        You’re spot-on with reference to Robert Freeman-Longo’s article in “Psychology Today”. That magazine is not a peer-reviewed journal like J.A.M.A. (Journal of the American Medical Association). It’s a mass circulation pop. psych. periodical. This article was written by Mr. Freeman-Longo when he was promoting his treatment program to the state of California. The article was misquoted. Mr. Freeman-Longo never said 80-85% of ALL sex offenders will go on to recidivate; he said 80-85% of UNTREATED sex offenders would go on to recidivate. The statistics have been soundly refuted with scientific studies in either case, but the point remains that even with that unsupported assumption on the part of Mr. Freeman-Longo the court altered his quote by changing the quote by just one word: UNTREATED.

        Does anyone see a similarity between this and what Satan did with Eve in the garden of Eden? God told Adam & Eve if they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they would SURELY DIE.
        Satan told Eve the surely would NOT die. Satan added one word and that’s all it took.

        • #82604 Reply
          Ed C

          Not only that, but in 2016 Mr. Longo has himself repudiated the validity and use of his own study! I gotta hand it to him for that. NARSOL rejects posts with links to other websites, so I can’t provide the source article.


      • #82206 Reply

        And we must not ask meekly that they stop the persecution.
        We must demand it…amd demand it…and demand it….and demand it!!!!

    • #82073 Reply
      Tim in WI

      Christopher Tyre,
      I’m very familiar with his tactics in risk assessment. Chris is a behavioral modification psychologist and has worked in SOTP treatment settings since the 90s, mostly at OCCI unit G, in Oshkosh WI. Christopher pretends to be a hard ass.
      His stance on homosexuality is old school and if he wants to up your risk that is where he goes to do it. He makes you out a threat to boys even when the record doesn’t support it with facts. If an offender was “openly gay” would not end up in his groups. IMO he knew behavior mod was useless for gay men and it was a source of professional anxiety for him. That’s my assessment of him.

      NARSOL, Note the dataset used originally wasn’t even U.S.
      Laughable! But that is who you’re dealing with. If this gets traction it calls into question the effic quality every WI DOC assessment.

    • #82102 Reply

      I am afraid that in the grand scheme of things this will only be a “minor hiccup” in the state’s machinations to create as many sexually violent predators as possible to justify their civil commitment scheme and the expenditures (livelihoods of stakeholders such as administrators, their “treatment” providers, “expert” 120 grand a year “evaluator”, etc.).

      Someone better be doing something to make danged sure the real data doesn’t “get lost” or “accidentally deleted” or altered/falsified in some way before this whole process plays out. This is of such a magnitude the state will do anything AND I MEAN ANYTHING at this point to cover their butts because they’ve been caught red-handed in an out-and-out LIE that has fraudulently and irreparably harmed no telling how many WI citizens.

      • #82156 Reply
        Tim in WI

        Imagine the look on an SOR agents face when you ask him\her about the DOC use of the plytheshomograph experience on the witness stand. Obviously, the topic is taboo in the context of testimony in the failure to register case but quite effective as to why any sane person wouldn’t trust the benevolent intent of their agency with concern for my personal information data.. I’ve put them in WI on the stand several times and i keep getting better at it. Obviously, I am not locked up so you can presume I’ve been moderately successful. Yelping to the feds is one tactic; confronting a jury another. At least this attorney has the right idea and attacks the USE OF the database.

    • #82155 Reply

      Because this is taxpayer funded work, tax payers (aka people forced to register) should be working to retrieve it under tax payer need to know in a transparent government.

    • #83015 Reply
      jeffrey marohl

      In the dissenting argument:
      (“The State here has alleged that it will face
      “substantial or irreparable injury” if it is ordered to release
      the DOC database.”)
      The most egregious injury Wi. will face is the exposure of itself to wrongful civil commitment of hundreds of citizens. The static 99 / 99R may be shown again to be a misused and inaccurate “tool”.
      Psychologists for opinions for hire should not be allowed to bend testimony, cover up data, or be paid to lie.
      This should never have had to go to the supreme court. Bad judgements because of social and political pressures are killing us.

Viewing 5 reply threads
Reply To: Favorable WI Supreme Court ruling based on state’s falsely inflating recidivism claims
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">