Table 1

Additional Criminal Cases

CaseSummary
U.S. v. Maack (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)33Richard Maack pled guilty to five counts of mail, wire, and bank fraud. The defense requested a downward departure for diminished mental capacity on the ground of Mr. Maack’s “longstanding compulsive sexual addiction.” Defense expert witnesses, psychiatrist Dr. Turner and internist Dr. Berman, opined that Mr. Maack suffered “from a primary sexual addiction, dating back to adolescence” (Ref. 33, p 451). Psychologist Dr. Cooke testified for the government that Mr. Maack’s behavior did not rise to the level of an addiction over which he lacked control. The court denied Mr. Maack’s motion, holding that even if sexual addiction is legitimate, the defense failed to establish a clear link between the crimes and sexual addiction.
U.S. v. Long (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia)34Kenneth Long was charged with multiple counts of trafficking minors, possessing sexually explicit depictions of minors, and sexual exploitation of children. Mr. Long requested a downward departure on the ground that he committed the offenses while experiencing a sexual disorder. Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Berlin testified for the defense, diagnosing Mr. Long with “paraphilic disorder not otherwise specified,” noting that he had a “significantly reduced mental capacity, both cognitively and volitionally” (Ref. 34, p 45). The court denied the motion, ruling that “evidence of powerful sexual addiction does not amount to proof that the defendant was without the capacity to decide what course of action to take in order to satisfy his addiction” (Ref. 34, p 47).
U.S. v. Lester (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)35Robert Lester was charged with two counts of sending child pornography to an undercover FBI agent posing as a 12-year-old girl and one count of attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity. The defense requested a downward departure on the grounds of diminished capacity due to OCD and sexual addiction. Psychologist Dr. Cooke testified for the defense that Mr. Lester’s sexual addiction constituted reduced mental capacity. Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff testified for the government that the term “addiction” did not apply because of the absence of adverse physical response when not engaging in sexual fantasies. He also disagreed with the claim that it constituted a “significant impairment in mental functioning” (Ref. 35, p 519). The court denied the motion, ruling that Mr. Lester did not have an impaired ability to control behaviors he knew were wrong.
U.S. v. Boyden (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division)36Robert Boyden was charged with purchasing access to a site providing online child pornography, as well as possession of sexually explicit depictions of minors. Psychologist Dr. Sugrue testified for the defense that Mr. Boyden was not a pedophile and diagnosed him with sexual addiction, characterized by lack of control. Psychologist Dr. Penix testified for the government and agreed that Mr. Boyden posed limited risk of recidivism but did not opine on the diagnosis of sexual addiction. The court cited the expert testimony when sentencing Mr. Boyden to 12 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release and counseling by a registered sex therapist (maximum sentence of 10 years).
U.S. v. Irey (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit)37William Irey was charged with one count of transporting sexually explicit material involving minors to the United States. During trial, he admitted to engaging in sexual intercourse with more than 50 underage girls (as young as four years old) in Cambodia. He also admitted to starring in and distributing footage and images of his sexual encounters. Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Berlin testified for the defense that Mr. Irey was unable to “appreciate the extent of his improprieties” (Ref. 37, p 1171). Psychologist Dr. Shaw further testified for the defense that Mr. Irey displayed a “long-standing problem with sexual obsession,” and “something like sexual addiction” (Ref. 37, p 1173). Many of the arguments focused on likelihood of recidivism and relied heavily on expert testimony. Mr. Irey was sentenced to 17.5 years in prison (from range of 15-30 years). On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that this sentence was unreasonable and imposed a 30-year sentence.
U.S. v. Wilbur (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division)38Preston Wilbur was charged with the possession and distribution of several thousand videos and images of child pornography. Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Saks conducted a psychosexual evaluation of Mr. Wilbur. She concluded that he was seeking treatment and had established “more social support and therapeutic connection” and opined that he “may not regress to Internet sexually compulsive behavior” if he continued treatment for sexual addiction (Ref. 38, p 4). The court imposed a 10-year sentence, followed by 20 years of supervised release (significantly less than advised range of 17.5-20 years), citing his treatment as a mitigating factor.
People v. Velasco (Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight)39William Velasco, Jr., was charged with one count of burglary and 14 counts of invasion of privacy for planting a hidden camera in the restroom of a restaurant. Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Lavid testified for the defense that he agreed with Mr. Velasco’s treating clinicians that his sexual addiction was in remission and that his risk of recidivism remained low. The court acknowledged that Mr. Velasco had sought treatment, though stated that there was no guarantee his disorders could be cured, and his risk of recidivism remained higher than zero. The court sentenced Mr. Velasco to four years imprisonment and lifetime registration to the sex offender registry.