tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post2603071087546827353..comments2024-03-20T19:17:02.285-07:00Comments on IN THE NEWS: SVP verdict overturned for prosecutorial misconduct -- againKaren Franklin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-33061272050553673792013-01-07T17:19:45.991-08:002013-01-07T17:19:45.991-08:00>>the district attorney began efforts to com...>>the district attorney began efforts to commit him indefinitely to a locked hospital based on his risk of reoffense<<<br /><br />Ah, this is different than the initial psychological evaluation, and I can see how time in prison might reduce the possibility of reoffense. Still, it seems unlikely that the state government and court system, both of which persisted to put him away in the first place, would let this man go free without a fight. Apparently, these entities automatically believe, or assume, that all SVP cases bear a high rate of recidivism, despite expert testimony to the contrary. Any trial would appear to be nothing more than a facade to make things look fair an unbaised, even with the involvement of a jury. In short: the powers that be will find some legitimate reason to keep him locked up, regardless of jury deliberation, and make it stick.researcheronehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576084808353132904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-62815171860074000222013-01-07T17:01:33.134-08:002013-01-07T17:01:33.134-08:00Ah, okay. Thanks for the brief. I thought the civi...Ah, okay. Thanks for the brief. I thought the civil commitment determination ran simultaneously with the criminal trial. After all, the status/existence of a diagnosis would directly play into/affect criminal guilt and the subsequent sentencing, at least with regard to SVP cases, no? Still, I can see why criminal proceedings and psycho-pathological evaluation would each be tried separately.<br /><br />In any case, from what I have heard regarding California courts, especially in the day and age of "predator panic," Shazier's future looks somewhat bleak.<br /><br />R1researcheronehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576084808353132904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-18125625586092354382013-01-06T19:01:33.607-08:002013-01-06T19:01:33.607-08:00I believe he is now at Coalinga state Hospital, no...I believe he is now at Coalinga state Hospital, not Atascadero. Some of the individuals at Coalinga have been committed as sexually violent predators (SVP's). Others are there awaiting their civil commitment trials, after having finished their criminal sentences in state prison. Shazier's status was that he had been civilly committed, but his commitment was on appeal. Winning his appeal does not grant him automatic release. He will remain hospitalized pending a decision by the District Attorney's Office on whether to try him again. Also, the Attorney General's Office could appeal this opinion to the California Supreme Court; if the state high court took the case and overruled the appellate court, his commitment would be reinstated. If no appeal is filed, and the DA decides not to try him again, then he would have to be released. <br /><br /><br />Karen Franklin, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-25965203211199834132013-01-06T15:57:10.487-08:002013-01-06T15:57:10.487-08:00Interesting, not that I'm surprised. Apparentl...Interesting, not that I'm surprised. Apparently, this guy prefers to employ questionable tactics to achieve a win in his court cases. Perhaps he possibly knew the shaky nature of 'hebephilia'?<br /><br />The bias of defense witnesses?? What about the witnesses of the prosecution? No, of course not--THOSE witnesses are naturally on the level and ALWAYS reliable, right?<br /><br />By the way, Karen, what is the defendent's current status? He was in Atascadero State Hospital awaiting the outcome. The case was overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct. How does that change Shazier's situation?<br /><br />Of course, all of this seems moot now, since Shazier is already in a state hospital undergoing standard (preventive?) treatment. I presume the case was to determine whether or not his stay would be extended and/or his treatment more focally specified?<br /><br />R1researcheronehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576084808353132904noreply@blogger.com