The Appeals Court heard argument Dec. 4 over whether revised risk‑category labels associated with the Static‑99R instrument should have been admitted in a sexually dangerous person (SDP) trial. Appellant counsel Frederick Bartman said the new descriptive labels and a 20‑year extrapolated risk measure risked misleading a jury and overstating the significance of a category assignment.

Bartman argued that labels conveying phrases such as "well above average likelihood of reoffending" can be used as rhetorical shortcuts that obscure individualized analysis and create unfair prejudice; he told the panel that cross‑examination and expert testimony are limited remedies once a jury has heard an emphatic categorical label. The petitioner also challenged admission of an unsigned post‑release memo that he said prejudiced the record.

Commonwealth counsel Mary Murray countered that the trial judge required the Commonwealth to explain the score, percentile ranks, risk labels and the 5‑, 10‑ and 20‑year metrics; she said those materials are in the evaluators’ workbook and the jury was instructed not to accept expert testimony uncritically. Murray further argued that the petitioner waived some objections and that the post‑release memo at issue was inadmissible hearsay when offered as a nonexpert report.

The judges pressed both sides on whether disputes over labels are questions of admissibility or weight, whether trial instructions constrained juror use of metrics, and whether any error would be harmless given the strength of the Commonwealth’s proof and multiple expert reports. The panel submitted the case after argument.

The court thanked counsel and took the matter under advisement; no disposition was announced from the bench.