Nebraska Supreme Court says mental health board must reconsider sex offender's commitment

Most important here is the court holding "Forced incriminating statements, cannot later be used against the person in a criminal procedure." i.e. In the Civil commitment hearing, they CANNOT used previously forced incriminating statements (Here: forced admission of guilt in order to get into sex offender therapy during a earlier period of probation).

5-14-2011 Nebraska:

LINCOLN, Neb. — A state mental health board must reconsider a case in which it ordered a convicted sex offender held for treatment following his prison sentence, under a Nebraska Supreme Court opinion issued Friday.

The state high court's decision reversed a ruling by a Dawson County District judge in the case of a man convicted in the early 1990s of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl.

Shortly before the man — referred to in court documents only as "A.M. Jr." — was scheduled to be released from prison in 2008, the state asked that a local mental-health board deem him a dangerous sex offender.

Using the evaluation of three state psychologists, the board concluded that A.M. was at risk of re-offending and committed him to inpatient treatment.

A.M. appealed, objecting to — among other things — the board's allowance of testimony from the psychologists about statements and other facts gathered from his 1992 third-degree sex assault conviction. A.M. was sentenced to probation in that case, but the conviction was later vacated.

Among his objections was that the experts used statements A.M. made during court-ordered treatment, in which he allegedly admitted to sex offenses for which he was never charged.

The psychologists testified at the 2008 commitment hearing that A.M. repeatedly minimized his actions during his court-ordered treatment on the vacated conviction. A.M. was dismissed from the program for noncompliance with treatment goals, dishonesty and failure to complete assignments.

The state Supreme Court agreed with some of A.M.'s arguments, noting that sex offender treatment programs often must be completed as a condition of probation and that the offender is threatened with revocation of probation if he or she fails to admit to sexual conduct.

"Thus, the offender's compelled, incriminating statements cannot be used against him in a subsequent criminal trial," the high court wrote, adding that under Nebraska law, a mental health board in sex offender commitment proceeding cannot consider any evidence that would be inadmissible in a criminal case.

Also, the use of those incriminating statements and the psychologist's out-of-court accusations in having A.M. committed violated his right to confront witnesses, the high court wrote.

A.M. had also argued in his appeal that Nebraska's law allowing sex offenders to be committed to treatment after serving their prison sentences is unconstitutional. But the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the law in 2006. ..Source.. by MARGERY A. BECK

---