Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellant alleges ineffective assistance before SORB; panel probes availability of post-hoc expert evidence
Summary
In the SORB appeal, counsel argued trial-level counsel’s failure to request funds for a retained expert prejudiced classification; the court examined procedural routes (30A, Rule 60(b)) to reopen administrative records and whether the record permits a prejudice finding on direct review.
Elizabeth Dougherty argued on behalf of the appellant that hearing counsel’s failure to move for discretionary funds to secure an expert deprived the registrant of meaningful evidence on dangerousness and recidivism, resulting in ineffective assistance at the administrative classification hearing.
The panel asked whether that claim can be meaningfully pursued on direct review without an evidentiary record and whether superior-court remedies (motion to reopen, reconsideration) or remand to the board are available. Dougherty said a motion under Rule 60(b) or a re-opening at the superior-court stage could let the appellant proffer what an expert would have said; opponents and the panel worried appellate review on a cold record risks speculation.
SOAR counsel Jessica Blackman noted waiver and record-development issues and urged the court to recognize procedural mechanisms to ensure claims relying on missing expert evidence can be fairly litigated. The panel examined regulatory language about evaluative reports and whether an outdated report can supply relevant evidence without a live witness.
