Appellate arguments challenge SORB’s denial of expert funds and classification findings in Doe 2534 case

Collin Caffrey, representing the appellant Doe 2534, told the Appeals Court SORB improperly denied a motion for expert funds that Caffrey said was necessary to assess how the appellant’s age, diabetes and heart disease affect risk of reoffense. Doe pleaded guilty in 2001 and is now 70; Caffrey said he identified a qualified expert and submitted more than 50 pages of medical records and asked the board to fund an evaluation tying the medical nexus to risk and dangerousness.

Caffrey argued the hearing examiner offered minimal and formulaic reasons mirroring SORB regulation language and failed to evaluate the nexus with sufficient expertise. He cited remand precedent (including an earlier decision remanding where SORB denied an expert concerning hepatitis C treatment effects) and said the hearing examiner’s failure to classify the second victim as intrafamilial was reversible error because that determination affects publication and release conditions.

David Shneider, counsel for SORB, responded that the proffer lacked evidence of physical limitations tied to lowered risk; SORB’s review of medical records showed the appellant reported feeling well and no records established functional impairments such as inability to walk or lift. Shneider said SORB may consider intrafamilial factors but intrafamilial status does not automatically reduce risk; the board must weigh the totality of factors including prior conduct, lack of treatment uptake, expected homelessness post‑release, and absence of support networks.

The panel questioned counsel on waiver of appellate claims not raised in the superior court, the proper scope of the hearing examiner’s findings, and whether remand would be appropriate for further factfinding. No immediate decision was announced.