United States v. Wooden

217 F.Supp.3d 843

UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner,

v.Walter WOODEN, Respondent.

NO. 5:10–HC–2151–BO

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division.

November 3, 2016

Filed November 7, 2016

Christina A. Kelley, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Michael E. Lockridge, Butner, NC, G. Norman Acker, III, Edward D. Gray, R. A. Renfer, Jr., United States Attorney's Office, Michael James, Raleigh, NC, for Petitioner.

Debra C. Graves, Joseph H. Craven, Sonya M. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, NC, Debra Carroll Graves, Durham, NC, for Respondent.

ORDER

TERRENCE W. BOYLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This cause comes before the Court following a hearing to review the commitment of respondent, Walter Wooden, as a sexually dangerous person pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 18 U.S.C. § 4248. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Mr. Wooden is no longer sexually dangerous and orders his release from commitment.

BACKGROUND

On July 15, 2010 the government instituted an action pursuant to Title 18, Section 4248(a), of United States Code, seeking to commit respondent Walter Wooden as a "sexually dangerous person" under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 ("Adam Walsh Act" or "the Act"). After an evidentiary hearing, this Court held first, that § 4248 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution as applied to Mr. Wooden, and second, that the government had not satisfied its burden to show that Mr. Wooden is sexually dangerous to others as defined by the Adam Walsh Act. [DE 68].

The government appealed, and by opinion filed September 6, 2012, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the Court's judgment and remanded the matter for reconsideration. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals held that this Court erred in its conclusion that the Act as applied to Mr. Wooden violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution. United States v. Wooden , 693 F.3d 440, 451 (4th Cir. 2012) ; see also United States v. Timms, 664 F.3d 436 (4th Cir. 2012). The court of appeals further reversed as clearly erroneous the Court's factual finding that Mr. Wooden does not suffer from a serious mental disorder and that, even if he did, he would not have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released. Wooden , 693 F.3d at 456 ; 462.

Upon remand, this Court again reviewed the evidence and held that, as the court of appeals had reversed and found clearly erroneous its earlier findings of fact, the law of the case in this matter prescribed that on those issues previously found in favor of Mr. Wooden and against the government, the government prevailed. [DE 84]. The Court then detained Mr. Wooden to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4248. Mr. Wooden appealed the Court's order, and the court of appeals vacated this Court's holding, finding that its "mandate did not require the district court on remand to find Wooden to be sexually dangerous." United States v. Wooden , 546 Fed.Appx. 229, 232 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished).

Following remand for a second time, the Court held a second hearing on March 5, 2014, at Raleigh, North Carolina. After a careful review of the record and the opinions of the court of appeals, the Court adopted the government's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, [DE 102], to the extent that it was not inconsistent with this Court's order entered April 9, 2014. [DE 106]. In the order, which was limited to the record as it existed at the 2011 hearing, the Court concluded that Mr. Wooden was indeed a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Act and ordered him civilly committed. Id.

On March 22, 2016, Mr. Wooden moved for a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) to challenge his continued commitment under the Act. [DE 120]. Mr. Wooden contends that there are essentially four reasons he should be discharged from civil commitment: (1) Dr. Winsmann's conclusion, to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that Mr. Wooden is not a sexually dangerous person; (2) Mr. Wooden's development of certain medical conditions that have debilitated him to the point that he is not a sexually dangerous person, notwithstanding his prior diagnoses; (3) Mr. Wooden's age at 60 which reduces his risk of reoffending significantly despite his prior diagnosis of pedophilia; and, in the alternative, (4) Mr. Wooden's release plan which will provide conditions under which Mr. Wooden would not be sexually dangerous if released to the community. Id. The Court granted Mr. Wooden's request, and a review hearing was conducted before the undersigned on September 28 and 29, 2016, at Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The Court considered the testimony of the following individuals:

Mr. Walter Wooden

Mr. Wooden testified on his own behalf at the hearing. During his testimony, Mr. Wooden expressed regret for his actions, stating that he "took advantage of them little kids" and that it was not the right thing to do. [DE 150 at 26]. He stated that he refuses to participate in sex treatment at Butner because he does not want to be around people who only think about "having sex with each other 24 hours a day" and that he's "trying to get away from all that." [DE 150 at 31]. He does not deny his past crimes, and he testified that he is no longer attracted to young boys. [DE 150 at 33]. He stated that he "trying to stay far away from that" and that he is attracted to women. [DE 150 at 33]. Mr. Wooden also testified that he suffers from diabetes, asthma, arthritis, and fractured shoulders and stated that he has had five surgeries on his legs, including a surgery in which two of his toes were removed. [DE 150 at 34]. He also suffers from constant pain and digestive issues. [DE 150 at 34–35]. He has been using a wheelchair for about a year, although he tries to work his legs when he can. [DE 150 at 36]. He stated that he plans on living with his sister, Rosia Simms, if released. [DE 150 at 38]. Finally, when asked if plans on having sex with children again, Mr. Wooden stated: "I'm not going to put myself in no situations like that no more, never. I'm not going to do it." [DE 150 at 39].

Dr. Joseph Plaud

The Court next considered Dr. Plaud's testimony and the formal reports of his psychological evaluation of Mr. Wooden. Dr. Plaud performed an evaluation of Mr. Wooden in the summer of 2014, and, as a result, noted significant concerns over Mr. Wooden's neurocognitive development. [DE 151 at 15]. He recommended that Mr. Wooden be further evaluated with standardized neuropsychological and intellectual testing. [DE 151 at 16]. After reviewing the report of Dr. Winsmann who performed that requested testing, Dr. Plaud issued an amended report in which he concluded that Mr. Wooden is no longer sexually dangerous. Resp't Ex. 6 at 2. Specifically, Dr. Plaud concluded that Mr. Wooden's:

historical intellectual and social deficits, as well as negative mood states, and other interpersonal deficits may have played a significant role in the genesis of his own delayed and at times problematic and illegal sexual functioning and behavior when he was a younger man. When specific analysis is given to Mr. Wooden's sexual volitional control at this time—which is the critical issue in this case—it is my professional judgment that his risk level is substantially reduced by a number of dynamic factors: his involvement thus far with the criminal justice system, the consequences he has received over many years in his civil commitment, his ongoing psychological maturation as a man who is now 60 years old. In reviewing his current intellectual and psychosocial functioning, it is my professional judgment that his current risk level does not comport itself to the standard that he would at this time have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.

Id. In his testimony, Dr. Plaud explained that while he initially diagnosed Mr. Wooden with historical Pedophilic Disorder, this diagnosis was based on historical data and stated further that "there's really no evidence in the better part, in the last 10 years that Mr. Wooden, as he sits at Butner, has recurrent or intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behavior involving sexual activity with prepubescent males. There's nothing." [DE 151 at 18–19]. In his amended report Dr. Plaud did not withdraw his initial diagnosis of Paraphilic Disorder by history, due in part to his understanding that the criteria of the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ("DSM–5") does not allow for remission of Pedophilic Disorder. [DE 151 at 35]. Dr. Plaud further testified that, in Mr. Wooden's initial proceedings, the testifying experts "didn't have the proper diagnostic structure to understand Mr. Wooden's functioning back then." [DE 151 at 27]. Dr. Plaud agrees with Dr. Winsmann's diagnosis of Intellectual Development Disorder ("IDD") (formerly mental retardation ), [DE 151 at 19], and would not diagnose Mr. Wooden with Antisocial Personality Disorder. Resp't Ex. 6 at 8. As to Mr. Wooden's explanations for his past actions, Dr. Plaud testified that they could be characterized as cognitive distortions if he was typically developed, but that "it's not that simple given Mr. Wooden's functioning level." [DE 151 at 37]. As to Mr. Wooden's credibility, Dr. Plaud stated that one "can't divorce what we now know about him and his ability to remember and express and articulate those memories the same as you would for you, I or everybody else in this courtroom. ... [I]t all has to be treated with a grain of salt to say the least." [DE 151 at 40]. Dr. Plaud believes that, now at age 60, Mr. Wooden has progressed cognitively so that he now has obtained a "fundamental understanding now of the wrongfulness of engaging in that behavior" and therefore...