Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears challenge to static‑99R evidence and instructions in LaSalle civil‑commitment trial
Summary
A petitioner in a Section 9 proceeding argued the judge admitted expert testimony—risk categories and recidivism percentages tied to the Static‑99R—improperly and gave confusing jury instructions; the Commonwealth defended the evidence under settled precedent and argued the petitioner’s subsequent adjudication made discharge impossible.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court convened Jan. 6 to hear argument in LaSalle v. Commonwealth, a Section 9 civil‑commitment appeal that focused on the admissibility of Static‑99R risk scores and accompanying recidivism percentages, the clarity of jury instructions, and whether a petitioner’s subsequent adjudication affected available relief.
Why it matters: Section 9 proceedings determine whether someone adjudicated previously as a sexually dangerous person remains so. LaSalle’s appeal presses whether statistical risk evidence and related numerical recidivism estimates should be admitted and whether the court’s instructions gave jurors a proper way to evaluate mental condition and future dangerousness.
What the petitioner argued
Laura Krismer, counsel for petitioner Joseph LaSalle, asked the court to…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
