In re Care & Treatment of Girard
Annotate this CaseDouglas Girard and Eugene Mallard were both convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The State filed petitions for their continued confinement as sexually violent predators, a designation that required proof that Defendants were likely to commit repeat acts of sexual violence because of a mental abnormality or personality disorder. Defendants urged the court to apply the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phamaceuticals, Inc. test to the actuarial risk assessments used by the State's expert witnesses in helping to predict the odds of Defendants reoffending. In both cases, the district court ruled that Frye v. United States applied to the actuarial risk assessments and admitted the scientific opinion testimony based partially on these statistical calculations of risk. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that neither Frye nor Daubert applied because the actuarial assessments were not scientific. The Supreme Court affirmed, but on different grounds, holding that Frye applied in this case and that the actuarial risk assessments survived Frye's scrutiny.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.