APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL.) CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: WELCOME, COUNSEL.
MR. MAYNARD? I WOULD LIKE TO GET THROUGH YOUR ARGUMENT THEN
PROBABLY TAKE A BREAK. JAMES H. MAYNARD: TUN. FIRST
I HAVE SUBMITTED MY REQUEST FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. CHIEF JUSTICE
RABNER: YES. JAMES H. MAYNARD: AS YOUR HONOR REQUESTED ME
TO DO IN THE FUTURE AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: JUMP RIGHT IN. JAMES H. MAYNARD: I ALSO
WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL IF I MIGHT. CHIEF JUSTICE
RABNER: THATS' FINE. JAMES H. MAYNARD: THANK YOU.
THE IMPOSITION OF MEGAN'S LAW ON JUVENILES IS KOONTSAL ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT A
JUVENILE REGISTRANT POSES AN ONGOING RISK OF HARM TO THE PUBLIC. ONCE A
REGISTRANT CAN PROVE THAT THEY NO LONGER ARE DANGEROUS TO ANYONE ELSE, MEGAN'S LAW
MAY NOT BE APPLIED ANY LONGER STATE EKS REL CREDIT K AT 76. THE JURORS
PRUNGS FRIEM WASHING OF C KFRMENT BUT MUST BE USED LERER AS WELL UNDER THAT FWRAM
WORK COURTS SHOULD FIRST CONSIDER THE MOST UP TO DATE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THEN
CONDUCT THE GREEN BURGLARY BALANCING TEST TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS AN ADEQUATE
PUBLIC NEED FORLT INFRINGE MENTS, THEN THE COURT MUST APPLY THE CONTROLLING
HOLDINGS FROM C K TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SUBSECTION F TIME BARS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.
NOTE THAT THE SAME PROCESS IS REQUIRED TO ASSESS THE CONSTITUTION
ALT OF EITHER THE 15-YEAR TIME BAR OR THE LIFETIME BRAR H BAR. BECAUSE NEITHER
OF THE TIME BARTS EVER SUCK SECTION F ARE NECESSARY TO ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY
THEY BOTH FAIL THE THIRD PRONG OF THE GREEN BURGLARY TEST ANIMUS BE FOUND
UNCONSTITUTIONALAL. TIME BARS THE TIME BARS OF MEGAN'S LAW ARE AN
ART FACT OF HISTORY. ESTABLISHED BEFORE SCIENCE PROVIDED A BETTER APPROACH. TIME
BARS WERE CREATED BECAUSE IN 1994 IT WAS ASSUMED THAT SEX OFFENDERS HAD A HEY
RIGHT OF RIE SIS ADVICE MANY NOW WE KNOW THEY DO NOT. IT WAS ASSUMED THAT SEX
OFFENDERS RECIDIVISM RISK REMAIN HIEFR OVER THERE LIFETIME, NOW WE KNOW THAT RISK
DECLINES RAPIDLY. THERE WAS VERY LITTLE DATA ABOUT THE ACTUAL
RATE OF RECIDIVISM, NOW WE HAVE EXTENSIVE DATA ON RECIDIVISM. AND THERE
WERE NO RELIABLE TOOLS FOR ASSESSING RISK, NOW WE HAVE ACCURATE RISK ASSESSMENT
TOOLS THAT ARE SCIENTIFICALLY VALIDATED LIKE THE STATIC 99 R.
THE TIME BARS OF MEGAN'S LAW WERE MEANT TO BE A PROS SEE FOR RISK. BECAUSE THEY HAD
NOTHING BETTER TO WORK WITH AT THAT TIME. BUT THE INESCAPABLE FACT NOUNLD
BY C K WAS THAT AUTOMATIC TIME BARS CONSTITUTE IR REBUTTAL PRESUME SHUNLS OF
DANGEROUSNESS AND WE NOW KNOW THESE PRESUME SHUNLS ARE NOT TRUE. RISK DECLINES
QUICKLY OVERTIME ESPECIALLY FOR JUVENILES. IN FACT, AFTER ONLY 3 YEARS LIVING
OFFENSE FREE IN THE COMMUNITY, JUVENILES ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT FOR A SEXUAL
OFFENSE WILL BE NO MORE DANGEROUS THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE COMMUNITY. THE SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN J A PROVIDES FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
TEE OF MLG TIME BARS BEYOND WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURTS IN C K. K K WAS
DECIDED IN 2018 BUT THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD IN C K WAS CREATED IN 2013 FROM
STUDIES EVEN OLDER THAN THAT. SO, OVER A DECADE OF ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND DATA
BEYOND WHAT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE KRLT K COURT IS BEFORE THIS COURT. A GROUND
BREAKING NEW FINDING AVAILABLE TO THIS COURT IS THAT THE RATE OF SEXUAL FENLDING
OF THE GENERAL POPULATION HAS BEEN DISCOVERED TO BE TWO PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
RETIREMENT SYSTEM. WHAT SCIENTISTS CALL THE DESIST TANS THRESHOLD.
THIS IS CRITICAL TO THE CASE AT BAR GIVEN THAT THE PROVISIONS OF MEGAN'S LAW ARE
ALL BASED ON RELATIVE RISK OF SEXUAL FENDING. BECAUSE ON THIS NEW EVIDENCE
BECAUSE OF THIS NEW EVIDENCE WE NOW KNOW THAT ALL JUVENILES WILL REACH THE DIFFICULT
SIS TANLS THRESHOLD WITHIN 3 YEARS OF A JUD INDICATION ORLY RELEASE THIS
IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF A JUD INDICATION THE JUVENILE RESIST INDIVIDUAL
MANY RATE IS ONLY 2.75 PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM. AND RISK REDUCES
BY 12 PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR EVERY YEAR OFFENSE FREE IN THE COMMUNITY.
THEREFORE, ALL JUVENILES WHO LIVE OFFENSE FREE FOR 3 YEARS AFTER ADJUDICATION
OR RELEASE WILL BE NO MORE DANGEROUS THAN ANYONE ELSE. BUT
EVEN THOSE JUVENILE A JUD CAN'T WHO DO COMMIT A SUBSEQUENT NON SEXUAL CRIME ONLY
DELAY REACHING DESIST TANS BY 3.3 YEARS. HOWEVER, THE RISK STILL DECLINES
AND THEY WILL STILL EVENTUALLY BECOME NO MORE DANGEROUS THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE
COMMUNITY. THE COMMISSION OF TECHNICAL OFFENSES, LIKE FAILURE
TO REGISTER, OR THE COMMISSION OF DISORDERLY PERSONS OR PETTY DISORDERLY PERSONS
OFFENSES, DO NOT DELAY REACHING THE DESIST TANS THRESHOLD. FOR EXAMPLE, J
AFRMENT COMMITTED TWO SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES. THAT DELAYED HIM REACHING THE DESIST
TANS THRESHOLD BUT NOW AS DOCTOR KNOW OF AN TESTIFIED, JUDGE AS RESIST ADVICE
MENT RISK IS A PROEFRMG SERIAL ROWE FRM HE IS LESS LIKELY TO COMMIT A SEXUAL
OFFENSE NA MEMBER OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IN THE CASE OF T L, WHO COMMITTED A
PETTY DISORDERLY PERSONS OFFENSE USING OFFENSE I HAVE LANGUAGE, HIS PROGRESS
TOWARD THE DIFFICULT SDIS SUBSTANCE THRESHOLD WAS NOT DELAYED BY THIS OFFENSE.
HE REACHED THE DESIST TANS THRESHOLD 3 YEARS AFTER ARE HIS ADJUDICATION.
IN C K, THIS COURT FOUND THAT THE PRESUMPTION UNDERLYING THE LIFETIME BAR
IMPOSED BY SUBSECTION G WAS THAT CERTAIN JUVENILE SEX OFFENDERS WERE IN REDEEM
ABL. THE C K COURT FOUND THAT PRESUMPTION TO BE FALSE. THE SAME PRESUMPTION IS
EQUALLY FALSE FOR SUBSECTION F. REDEMPTION IS POSSIBLE FOR JUVENILES A
DJUDICATED DELINQUENT FOR A SEXUAL OFFENSE BECAUSE RISK DECLINES AND REHABILITATION
IS NEARLY UNIVERSAL. THAT IS THE END OF MY OPENING STATEMENT
I WOP HAEP TO TENANTER TANL ANY QUESTIONS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER:
COUNSEL YOU ARE ASKING IN ESSENCE FOR A FINDING THAT THE LIFETIME REGISTRATION
SCHEME SET FORTH UNDER F IS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT PURPOSE,
OR FOR A 17-YEAR OLENOWSKI WHO THEN GOES ON TO COMMIT ANOTHER OFFENSE.
WOULD THAT SAME LOGIC EXTEND TO AN 18-YEAR OLD? JAMES H. MAYNARD:
THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES PEOPLE IN THE ANSWER I WOULD GIVE ABOUT ANY TIME BAR IS
THAT AT THE POINT WHERE THE TIME BAR SEES EAST TO HAVE A RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP
TO PUBLIC SAFETY, PURNT TO THE GREENBERG ANALYSIS, THAT IT'S NO LONGER CONSTITUTIONAL.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: SO IF THERE WERE STUDIES OF YOUNG ADULTS
SOESH LOJLY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE RATE OF REOFFENSE ALONG THE
LINES OF WHAT YOU HAVE JUST SAID, THE ARGUMENT WOULD THEN PROVIDER A
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO ADULTS. JAMES H. MAYNARD: IT WOULD CERTAINLY
FATS PAT YOU ARE ASKING US TO OVERRULE A SIGNIFICANT PART OF DOE VERSUS
IMPORTANT IT IS ARE YOU NOT? JAMES H. MAYNARD: NO BECAUSE DOE VERSUS
IMPORTANT IT IS WAS PREDICATED ONLY THE ENTIRE PROEM IS OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
DOE VERSUS IMPORTANT IT IS ARTICULATED THAT IT WAS THAT MEGAN'S LAW WAS INTENDED
BY THE LEGISLATURE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDERS AND
AT THE POINT WHERE AND DOE V. IMPORTANT IT IS MADE AN EXPLICIT ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH
AND DIFFERENTIATE NON DANGEROUS FROM MORE DANGCIL RUST SEX OFFENDERS AND
IN FACT INDICATED THAT ONCE A PERSON SEES EAST TO POSE A RISKS TO THE PUBLIC, THEY
SHOULDN'T BE DISTURBED ANY MORE THAN ANYONE. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: BUT YOU ARE DOE VERSUS IMPORTANT IT IS FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL THE
LIFETIME REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT. CORRECT. JAMES H.
MAYNARD: DOE VERSUS IMPORTANT IT IS FOUNTDZ CONSTITUTIONAL THE IMPOSITION OF A
LIFETIME SCHEME THAT MEGAN'S LAW THAT COULD THEN BE CHALLENGEED BASED ON
A SAFETY ASCERTAIN MENT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: ALL RIGHT. SO THEN
SHOULD WE ASSUME FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR ARGUMENT THAT EVERY ASPECT OF DOE
VERSUS IMPORTANT IT IS IN TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION SUBSTITUTION ALT OF THE STATUTE
THUR NOT CLAJING? THAT IS OUR STARTING POIN IS DOE VERSUS IMPORTANT IT IS.
JAMES H. MAYNARD: WELL, DOE VERSUS IMPORTANT IT IS AND I THINK IT
LEGISLATIVE STATEMENT AS WELL, IF I NJAA READ THAT IT IS VERY BRIEF THE
LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES, AFRMENT THE DANG IR OF RECIDIVISM POSED BY SEX
OFFENDERS FENDERS WHO CREATE OTHER PRED TRI ACTS AGAINST CHILDREN AND THE DANGERS
POSED BY PERNTS WHO PRAY ON OTHERS AS A RULE OF MENTAL I WILL IN EAST REQUIRE
A SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION THAT WILL PERNLT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL GOES TO IDENTIFY
AND ALERT THE PUBLIC WHEN NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: I UNDERSTAND, I WANT YOU TO GO AHEAD WITH THAT ARGUMENT BUT
I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT WE'RE HERE ON A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU ARE MAKING ARGUMENTS THAT THE LEGISLATURE'S DETERMINATION
AND THEN THE CONSTITUTION ALT, CONSTITUTIONAL DETERMINATION MADE BY
THE COURT IN DOE VERSUS IMPORTANT IT IS WAS PREDICATED ON A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING
THAT SCIENCE HAS NOW CORRECTED. JAMES H. MAYNARD: WELL,
ACTUALLY, OKAY, SO MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS NO, THE ENTIRETY OF THE MEGAN'S LAW
SCHEME AND THE GENERAL HOLDINGS IN DOE VERSUS IMPORTANT ITSDZ AND THE LEG I HAVE
INTENT WERE ALL TO PROTECT SOCIETY. WHAT THEY LAKTD WAS SOME OF THE TOOLS
TO ASSESS RISK. AND SO WHAT'S FAULTY NOW CONSTITUTIONLY FAULTY AT THIS POINT ARE
SOME OF THE PROXIES, THE ARTIFICIAL PROXIES THEY PUT INTO PLACE BECAUSE
THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE TOOLS TO A SETS RISK WANL WAYNE TO THE LEGISLATURE THAT THEY
WERE PASSING ALLOW BASED ON SCIENCE THAT HAS NOW BEEN. JUSTICE
WAINER APTER: THAT HAS NOW EVOLVED AND THEY SANLD THE LAW SO THAT IT COMPORTS
WITH CURRENT SCIENCE. JAMES H. MAYNARD: IT CERTAINLY IS AN
ARGUMENT THAT SHOULD THAT COULD BE MADE TO THE LEGISLATURE, THE LEGISLATURE
COULD DECIDE TO TAKE IT UP BY THIM SEFRTS, SOMEONE COULD SUGGEST IT, BUT NONE OF
THAT IS HAS ANY CERTAINTY OF ACTION IN THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH IS MOTIVATED
BY OTHER THINGS NA JUDICIAL REVIEW. A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING
HERE, HAS A DIFFERENT SET OF PRIORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS AND A JUDICIAL
REVIEW REQUIRES THE COURT TO DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTION ALT OF A PROVISION.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: WOE YOU SAY TO US THAT DOE VERSUS IMPORTANT WITNESSES
WAS RELIENTS ON PROXIES AND I ASSUME YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BANS.
JAMES H. MAYNARD: PROXIES FOR EXAMPLE THE 15-YEAR BAR IS ONE OF THOSE PROXIES.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: THE LIFETIME REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT
THESE WERE PROXIES FOR SCIENCE #6R78 SO WHAT I THINK YOU ARE TELLING US IS THAT
WE SHOULD REVISIT ASPECTS OF DOE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY GROUNDED
IN SCIENCE. JAMES H. MAYNARD: WELL, ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: JUST A YES OR NO IS THAT WERE YOU AWARE
ASKING. JAMES H. MAYNARD: DOE IS NOT SAYING THAT. DOE IS NOT
DOE DIDN'T SET UP THOSE PROXIES. JUSTICE PATTERSON: THE LEGISLATURE
SET UP THE PROB SEES. JAMES H. MAYNARD: THE LEGISLATURE SO
DOE JUST SAID WE HAVE A DANGER HERE, IT'S OKAY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
WE ARE GOING TO USE THE BEST TOOLS WE HAVE AND LET'S PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE BUT
IT IS ALL PACED ON THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: DOE FOUND WHAT YOU ARE CALLING PROXIES TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL.
JAMES H. MAYNARD: THE PROXIES TERMINATION WAS NEVER BEFORE THE COURT IN DOE
FOR EXAMPLE. DOE WAS HEARD AT A TIME BEFORE ANY TERMINATION ISSUES WERE
RELEVANT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: DOESN'T THAT -- WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE 15-YEAR TIME BAR WAS FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL IN DOE CORRECT.
JAMES H. MAYNARD: WELL, DOE LTS SAID, AND THIS I THINK GOES TO THE HEART
OF THE QUESTION, WE GET LEGISLATE ^ YOURS ^ YOURSELF GET TO DO GET TO RESPOND
TO PROBLEMS WITH THE BEST TOOLS THEY EVER AVAILABLE SO THE DOE EXPLICITLY
ACKNOWLEDGEED THAT THE FINDING OF CONSTITUTION ALT WITH WHAT THE LEGISLATURE
WAS DOING AND SUBSEQUENTLY WITH GUIDELINES AND SO ON, WAS BASED ON THE PREMISE
THAT IT WAS THE BEST OPTION AVAILABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THE PUBLIC -- THE LEGITIMATE
STATE INTEREST OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDERS.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: NOW YOU ARE TELLING US THERE ARE BETTER TOOLS AND THERE
IS BETTER SCIENCE AND THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY SHOULD COME OUT
DIFFERENTLY THAN IT DID IN DOE. I'M SIMPLY ASKING YOU ARE YOU ASKING US TO REVISIT
DOE ANY ASPECT OF DOE OR SHOULD WE ASSUME THAT YOU ARE ANALYSIS PROCEED ON THE
PRENL IS THAT DOE VERSUS IMPORTANT IT IS REMAINS THE LAW?
JAMES H. MAYNARD: WELL, I WANT TO GIVE YOU IDEAS APPROXIMATELY WANT TO GIVE YOU
A YES OR NO ANSWER SO IT'S NOT THAT. IT'S JUST THAT I THINK THAT DOE IS
ACTUALLY SAYING SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT, WHICH IS DOE IS NOT SAYING MEGAN'S LAW
IS COPSAL AND THAT'S TS EDGED OF THE INQUIRY, DOE WAS SAYING MEGAN'S LAW
AND COMPONENTS OF MEGAN'S LAW ARE CONSTITUTIONAL ONLY IN SO LONG AS THEY ARE LEGITIMATE
TOOLS TO RESPOND TO THE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDERS.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHERE IS THAT IN DOE. JAMES H.
MAYNARD: PRANLTS IT WOULD BE MORE SATISFYING IF I SAID I THINK FROM A
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS STANDPOINT NOT FROM A STATUTORY KONL STRUCK STAN
FOINT BUT FROM MY STANDPOINT FROM SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
AND EQUAL PROTECTION, ANY ASPECT OF MEGAN'S LAW DOES NOT PAST GREENBERG TEST
FOR A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INFRINGE MENTS ON THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES THAT
IT INFRINGE EAST ON AND SOME PUBLIC PURM THAT IS ADEQUATE IF THERE IS NOT A REAL
AND SUBSTANTIAL CORRELATION THERE AND IT DOESN'T PAST GREENBERG TEST IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONALAL BAT PAT AND THAT APPLIES TO ADULTS AS WELL AS CHILDREN I KNOW
WE ARE HERE ON CHILDREN. LET'S BE OUT IN THE OPEN. JAMES H.
MAYNARD: I WANT IT TO BE OUT IN THE OPEN BECAUSE I AM FRANKLY COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
FOR LIFE TIRED OF EVERYBODY THINKING THAT THIS IS A STEPPING STONE TO GET
SOMEWHERE ELSE. THIS IS NOT A STEPPING STONE, THE JUVENILE ISSUES WE'RE RAISING
IS NOT A STEMMING STONE IS TO GET TO ADULT MATTERS, THEY'RE ALL SIMPLY THE
RULE OF A CONSISTENT CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS. AND THEY EVER THE SAME
OUTCOME WHERE THEY SHARE CHARACTERISTICS ARTIFICIAL TIME BARS.
JAMES H. MAYNARD: JUSTICE PATTERSON: THE ARGUMENT YOU ARE
MAKING I READ YOUR BRIEF THE ARGUMENT YOU ARE MAKING COULD APPLY TO ADULTS AS WEL
L AS CHILDREN COULD IT NOT. JAMES H. MAYNARD: I SAY IT DOES. I SAY
IT ABSOLUTELY DOES. AND I SAY THAT ACTUALLY THE ONE STOP SCHONKOLEWSKI
THAT THIS COURT COULD DO IS TO FIND THAT ARTIFICIAL ANTIQUATED TIME BARS THAT HAVE
DO NOT IN FACT PAST GREENBERG TEST AND ARE NOT RATIONALLY RELATED TO THE
PROTECTS OF THE PUBL FROM SECTION OFFENSE RECIDIVISM SHOULD IN FACT ALL BE INVALIDATED
AND REPLACED WITH THE MUCH BETTER TOOLS THAT WOULD MUCH BETTER PROTECTS
THE PUBLIC AND THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE CONSTITUTIONAL TO THE REGISTRANTS WHO ARE
SUBJECT TO THEM. JAMES H. MAYNARD: JUSTICE
PATTERSON: THAT IS SEVERAL THANK YOU. JUSTICE WAINER APTER:
A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR CONSISTENT CONSTITUTIONAL
ANALYSIS IS THERE A THE COURT HAS TO CONSTANTLY BE REVIEWING LAWS ENACTED FWIET
LEGISLATURE TO SAY, WE DON'T THINK THAT THIS COMPORTS WITH THE BEST SCIENCE
ANYMORE AND THEREFORE WE ARE GOING TO DEEM IT UNCONSTITUTIONALAL BECAUSE THE SCIENCE
HAS CHANGED, THE LEGISLATURE HASN'T MADE THE DECISION TO CHANGE THE LAW,
THEREFORE ALL LAWS WHERE IT NO LONGER COMPORTS WITH THE BEST SCIENCE AVAILABLE WE ARE
JUST GOING TO STRIKE THEM DOWN. JAMES H. MAYNARD: I COULDN'T
AGREE MORE. THAT IT IS THE WAY THE COURTS DO AND SHOULD WORK. THAT IS
EXACTLY WHAT IS AUTHORIZED BY MANY CASES WHEN CHANGED ART FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
OCCUR, THEN NEW ANALYSIS IS APPROPRIATE AND LAWS CAN AND SHOULD BE REVISITED
AND REVIEWED FOR CONSTITUTION ALT UNDER THE NEW FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
JUSTICE WAINER APTER: WHAT TYPE OF INDICATES SAYS THAT? THAT WHEN THE LAW
NO LONGER COMPORTS WITH THE BEST SCIENCE, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY STRUCK DOWN.
JAMES H. MAYNARD: THERE ARE A NUMBER -- I DO HAVE IT IN
MY NL NOTES IN MY OTHER IN MY BRIEFCASE RIGHT HERE. IT'S IN OUR BRIEFING. AND
SO IT'S -- I AM JUST GOING BLANK ON THE CASE THAT WE CITED. CHIEF
JUSTICE RABNER: YOU CAN TELL US IN REBUTTAL. JAMES H.
MAYNARD: YEAH. WELL, 1 CASE IS C K ACTUALLY. C K ACTUALLY DOES
SAY THAT CHANGED SCIENTIFIC CHANGED FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT JUSTIFY REVIEW
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OR CHANGED FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE APPROPRIATE TO
REANALYZE AND POTENTIALLY READVISE THE KONLTSAL DETERMINATIONS OF A COURT RELATED
TO THE SAME LAW OR THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER. SO C K IT'S RIGHT IN C
KFRMENT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: JUSTICE NORIEGA:
LETS HE SAY FOR ARTHD SAKE WE ACCEPT. JAMES H. MAYNARD: NOIR
AND THAT'S WHAT C KFRMENT DID THAT IS HE EXACTLY WHAT C DID KAFRMENT DID.
JAMES H. MAYNARD: JUSTICE NORIEGA: LET'S SAY FOR ARTHD SAKE
WE ACCEPT THAT PREMISE WHERE IS THE SCIENCE IN THIS CASE APPLICABLE TO NEW
JERSEY SPECIFICALLY REGARDING RECIDIVISM RATES? NOT GENERALLY SPIFRL TO NEW JERSEY
AND HOW IT WOULD IMPACT NEW JERSEY RESIDENTS. JAMES H.
MAYNARD: WELL, BY NEW JERSEY DO YOU MEAN STUDIES THAT WERE JUST DONE SPECIFICALLY
IN NEW JERSEY? OR THE SCIENCE WOULD APPLY TO NEW JERSEY INDIVIDUALS?
JUSTICE NORIEGA: I THINK EITHER BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY IN THE
CONTEXT OF WE HEARD EARLIER TODAY WHAT AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED IN
NEW JERSEY AT CERTAIN AGES SO I THINK IT WOSH IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT
INFORMATION TO GET TO THAT -- TO REACH THE CONCLUSION YOU ARE ASKING US TO REACH.
JAMES H. MAYNARD: UNDOUBTEDLY. SO THE
SCIENCE THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO, THE BODY OF SIGN IT WE ARE REFERRING TO IS 30 YEARS,
HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF STUDIES, MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF STUDIED
INDIVIDUALS, INDIVIDUAL STUDIES STIEMS GOING TO 30 THOUSAND INDIVIDUALS STUDIES
AT A TIME, THE SCIENCE IS SO ROBUST, SO MASSIVE, IT'S ABSOLUTELY UNCOULDN'T
VOIT ABL, THERE IS ABSOLUTE AGREEMENT IN THE RELEVANT PROEFRGSAL COMMUNITY, THERE
IS NO QUESTION THAT THOSE DIEN NICKS TELLS TED BY THE SAME TOOLS THAT THEY TEST
SOMEONE IN NEW JERSEY ON, FOR EXAMPLE THEY DEVELOPED THE ACTUARIAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOR RISK, AND SO THOSE TOOLS BASED ON THE DATA AND THE UNDERSTANDINGS CREATED
ACTUARIAL TOOLS THAT CAN ASSESS ANY INDIVIDUAL ON THIS PLANET IN THE SAME
WAY AND COME UP WITH A RISK OUTCOME. JUSTICE PATTERSON: IN THAT VERY
STARTS WILL GO STATEMENT THAT YOU JUST MADE ABOUT THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE
IS TRUE, WHY HASN'T ANYBODY GONE TO THE LEGISLATURE AND SAID, YOU HAVE MEGAN'S LAW
IN PLACE FOR 30 YEARS AND SCIENCE HAS DEE FEN TIFLY PROVEN WITH HUNDREDS
AND THOUSANDS OF STUDIES THAT IT IS BASED ON A TOTALLY FALSE PREMISE UNDO IT SFLOO
I TESTIFIED BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE ONCE ABOUT I DON'T KNOW A DECADE AGO AND
THE FACT 69 MEERT IS I THINK THAT IT'S IT SEEMS TO BE THE WAY I HAVE HEARD IT PUT
IS SECTION OFFENSE SGLIEFRJTS SEX OFFENSE DOING ANYTHING THAT CAN BE SEEN TO BE
POSITIVE FOR SECTION FEND FENLD ORS IS THE #24IRD RAIL AND THEY DOESN'T WANT TO
TOUCH IT AND UNION COUNTY THE LEGISLATURE HAS A DIFFERENT MANDATE. IT IS A
POLITICAL BODY AND THEY OPERATE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: THE LEGISLATURE
HAS A MANDATE IN THE CONSTITUTION TO CREATE POLICY. THAT'S NOT THIS
COURT'S ROLE, IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS
THEIR JOB TO CREATE POLICY. SO YOU ARE KORJ TO US AND SAYING THE LEGISLATURE
IS THE THIRD RAIL, UNION COUNTY, THEY ARE NOT THE PEOPLE TO GO TO, YOU ARE COMING
TO US AND SAYING THAT ALL OF THIS THE LEGISLATURES ENTIRE POLICY
DETERMINATION HERE IS PREMISED ON A FALSE HOOD THAT SCIENCE HAS NOW DISPROVEN AND
YOU'RE SAYING TO US, AND I A PRESHG YOUR CLAUR TEE THAT WE ARE HERE ON A
JUVENILE BUT YOUR ARGUMENT APPLIES SQUARELY TO EVERY SINGLE SECRETARIES OFFENDER
ADULT OR JUVENILE IN THE STATE THE WHOLE MEGAN'S LAW SCHEME SHOULD BE UNDONE.
JAMES H. MAYNARD: THAT IS NOT TRUE I NEVER SAID THE WHOLE
MLG SKEENL SHOULD BE UNDONE I SAID VERY SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS OF MEGAN'S
LAW, SUCH AS THE ARTIFICIAL TIME BARS WHETHER IT IS 15 OR LIFE, AND THE WAY
THAT THE ARE ARE AS FUNCTIONS THOSE ARE THE THINGS. MEGAN'S LAW CAN STAY IN PLACE.
IN FACT, MEGAN'S LAW INL "NOT ADD VOCATIONING FOR THE ELIMINATION OF
MEGAN'S LAW, MEGAN'S LAW WOULD BE DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED AND THE PUBLIC MUCH
BETTER SERVED BY A BETTER FUNCTIONING MEGAN'S LAW WHERE THE ACTUAL REGISTRY
PROCESS WORKS TO INFORM PEOPLE ABOUT WHO'S DANGEROUS AND LOCALS' NOT."
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MR. MAYNARD IS THERE A DISTINCTION TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN
A SEK OFFENSE THAT IS NOT A SEXUAL OFFENSE AS OPPOSED TO ONE THAT IS A SECOND
OFFENSE? JAMES H. MAYNARD: ABSOLUTELY YES. OF COURSE.
WHEN THERE IS A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE OR OFFENSES THAT ARE OF A SEXUAL NATURE
SHTHS THAT IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT UNION COUNTY BALL OF WAX THAT IS A WHOLE
DIFFERENT SITUATION. AND THEN WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE IS THOSE SAME ACTUARIAL TOONLS
WOULD HAVE A WHOLE DIFFERENT OUTCOME OF A MUCH GREATER RISK OUTCOME WHEN THEY
ARE TESTED, AND ANY JUDGE CONDUCTING ANY SUBSECTION F SAFETY BAR ANALYSIS WOULD
CERTAINLY SEE THAT. THAT A PERSON DMITING A SUBSEQUENT SECRETARIES OFFENSE IS
NOT AT ALL WHAT WE ARE TALK WILL GO ABOUT WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE VAFRT MAJORITY
OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT COMMIT SKWENTD SEXUAL OFFENSES SO YES THE ANSWER IS.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: IS A SO-CALLED ARTIFICIAL TIME BAR THAT
IS LIMTHED TO SECTION OFFENSES UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISTRIBUTIONAL?
JAMES H. MAYNARD: AN ARTIFICIAL TIME BAR IS LIMITED AN ARTIFICIAL TIME
BAR THAT DOES NOT AGAIN PAST PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS RELATED TO
SATISFYING OR BEING NEEDED FOR A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC NEED IS UNCONSTITUTIONALAL.
AND IF I NIGHT RESPOND TO SOMETHING YOU SAID EARLIER THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO
FORGET I AM GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS BECAUSE AS MUCH
AS PEOPLE TALK ABOUT REFERRING THINGS TO THE LEGISLATURE, THE COURTS CANNOT
DEFER ASSESSING AND RULING ON THE CONSTITUTION ALT OF A PROVISION WHERE A PROPER
CLAJ HAS BEEN MADE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: I AM NOT SUGGESTING ANY
SUCH THING. IN DISCUSSING THE LEGISLATURE YOU TALKED ABOUT GOING TO THE LEGISLATURE
AND APPARENTLY HAVE MADE A DETERMINATION THAT IT IS NOT SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE
THIS IS THE THISHLTD RAIL. JAMES H. MAYNARD: IT WASN'T CITY OF
NEWARK FL NOTHING HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN ANY REFORM OF MEGAN'S LAW. ONLY
IN THE ATTEMPT TO HARSH IN OR PROVIDER IN OTHER RESTRICTIONS HAS OCCURRED. ABOUT
YOU IF I MIGHT FINISH THAT. THE SEPARATION OF POWERS REQUIRES SINCE
MAR BURY VERSUS MADISON THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW OCCUR ON THE BASIS OF CHALLENGES
BROUGHT TO THE COURT. AND IF THE COURT REFERS OR DEFERS TO THE LEGISLATURE,
IN SUCH A MANNER AS NOT TO UNDERTAKE THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW AT THE TIME AND IN THE
WAY THAT A PROPER CHALLENGE IS MADE, TO RESPOND TO THAT CHALLENGE, THEN
IT'S -- IT BLURS THE DISTINCTION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BECAUSE THE JUDICIARY
ACTUALLY COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FOR LIFE BECOMES SUB SUNLD BY THE LEGEND
YOU ARE. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: MADISON NEVER HELD THAT ALL
LAWS HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE BEST SCIENCE AND AS SOON AS THEY ARE NO LONGER
SUPPORTED BY THE BEST SCIENCE A COURT MUST STRIKE THEM DOWN. STRUGGLING WITH
WHERE THAT PROPOSITION COMES FROM. JAMES H. MAYNARD: THAT
ALL LOOSE HAVE TOK SPOERTDED BY THE BEST SCIENCE. JUSTICE WAINER
APTER: CORRECT. JAMES H. MAYNARD: ALL RIGHT THAT'S NOT WHAT
I AM SAYING. I AM UNSOLICITED EMAILS SAYING ALL LAWS HAVE TO BE SPOERDED BY THE
BEST SCIENCE, I'M SAYING THAT THERE HAS TO BE A PROPER RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP
WHEN THERE IS AN INFRINGEMENT ON RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES. JUSTICE
WAINER APTER: WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT THAT THIS IS INFRINGING.
JAMES H. MAYNARD: C K FOUND THAT ARTICLE ONE PARAGRAPH ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION,
THE ENTIRE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES UNDER ARTICLE ONE PARAGRAPH ONE WERE
INFRINGEED BY MEGAN'S LAW EVEN A PERSON WHO IS A TIER ONE ON MEGAN'S LAW.
JUSTICE WAINER APTER: WHAT SPECIFIC FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT THAT SET FORTH IN ARTICLE
ONE PARAGRAPH ONE. JAMES H. MAYNARD: SURE. WELL, HERE IS
A SHORT RENDITION OF SOME, ONLY SOME OF THE HARMS THAT EVEN A TOOER ONE
REGISTRANT IN OUR STATE IS SUBJECTED TO WHEN TRAVELING INTERSTATE OR MOVING TO
OBTAINING A JOB OR IN ANOTHER STATE WILL EXPOSE A NEW JERSEY REGISTRANT
TO INTERNET REGISTRY, RESIDENCY RESTRICTION GOES, PROXIMITY RESTRICTIONS, IN PERSON
REGISTRATION. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: YOU MEAN IN A DIFFERENT
STATE NOT IN NEW JERSEY. JAMES H. MAYNARD: YES. BUT BY BEING BY
VIRTUE OF BEELG A REGISTRANT IN NEW JERSEY, THESE ARE HARMS THAT ARE
PREVENTED FROM GOING TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS OTHER OTHER STATES WITHOUT SNLING
THEMSELVES TO ALL OF THESE THINGS. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: THOSE OTHER
JURISDICTIONS HAVE LAWS THAT SAY ISN'T THAT BECAUSE OTHER JURISDICTIONS
HAVE LAWS THAT THEIR COURTS HAVE UPHELD AS KOFRNSAL REGARD WILL GO REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS? JAMES H. MAYNARD: OF COURSE. BUT THE FACT
THAT THOSE LAWS ARE TRIGGERED IS BECAUSE THEY'RE IN NEW JERSEY MEGAN'S LAW REGISTRANT.
JUSTICE WAINER APTER: WHAT FUNLTAL RIGHT THAT.
JAMES H. MAYNARD: WHAT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS? WELL AS ARTICLE ONE PARAGRAPH ONE
OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION SAID, AS WAS FOUND IN C K, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT
TO THE PURSUIT OF HAEP NECESSARY, THE OBTAINING AND DEFER OF PROPERTY, I WOULD
SUGGEST THAT AND C KFRMENT SUGGESTED THAT ONCE YOU ARE LABELED A SOCIAL
PENNSYLVANIA RIE AN, I'LL JUST READ WHAT C COCAINE SAID SUBSECTION G AS APPLIED
TO JUVENILES ASHL TRARLY DENIES THOSE INDIVIDUALS THEIR RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND
ENJOYMENT OF HAEP NECESSARY GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE ONE PARAGRAPH ONE OF THE NEW JERSEY
CONSTITUTION THAT IS KRFRM KFRMENT AT PAGE 76. SAYING THAT IT LABELS MEGAN'S LAW
RETHS AS SOCIAL PENNSYLVANIA RIE AS, INTERFERES WITH GAMEING EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES, INTERFERES WITH FINDING ACCEPTANCE IN THE COMMUNITY,
INTERFERES WITH DEVELOPING A HEALTHY SENSE OF SELF-WORTH, AND FORMING PERSONAL
RELATIONSHIPS 6789 THAT'S DRELG FROM C KFRMENT. AND THOSE ARE THE REAL
IMPACTS OF EVEN A TIER ONE MEGAN'S LAW REGISTRANT AND MANY MANY MORE. NOT TO MENTION
INTERNATIONAL MEGAN'S LAW IS APPLIED TO A NEW JERSEY MEGAN'S LAW REGISTRANT, IN
AN INABILITY TO ENTER CERTAIN KUN TREATS, FEDERAL ZONE AN IS AND BAYER YERGS TO
OBTAINING HOUSING ESPECIALLY RENTAL UNITS EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION. SO THERE
IS A MRET OPRA. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: YOU ARE DISAGREEING
WITH THE LOELING IN DOE THAT THE CLAJ PROVISIONS DO UNSOLICITED EMAILS KOFRNTS
SUBSTITUTE PUNISHMENT. JAMES H. MAYNARD: NO, I AM NOT I AM NOT
DISAGREEING WITH THAT AS V AT ALL ACTUALLY. I AM SAYING THAT DOE, DOE SAID VERY, VERY
CLEARLY THAT IF THERE IS A LEGITIMATE NEED, A LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST,
THAT IS BEING SATISFIED WITH THE BEST, MOST NARROW MEANS POSSIBLE THAT WE HAVE,
THOSE INFRINGE MENTS ARE TO BE TOLERATED, #24ER CONSTITUTIONAL. BUT THOSE
HARNLS DO EXIST. SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND YES, THERE IS HARM TO BEING ON
MEGAN'S LAW. EVEN A TIER ONE. DOE V IMPORTANT IT IS SAID WE'VE GOT A
SERIOUS PROBLEM, WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND AS LONG AS WE DO IT
IN A WAY THAT PASSES CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS, WE GET TO DO THAT. EVEN IF
IT'S I AM PERFECT. EVEN IF IT INFRINGES TERRIBLY ON SOMEBODY'S RIGHTS AND INTEREST.
BUT DOE ALSO SAID THAT AT A POINT WHERE A PERSON SEES EAST TO PRESENT ANYMORE
RISK TO THE PUBLIC THAN THEIR NEIGHBORS SHG THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
THEN THEY MUST NOT HAVE THOSE INFRINGE MENTS FURTHER. SO DOE SAID YOU CAN ONLY
INFRINGE ON SOMEONE'S RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WHEN THERE IS AN ADEQUATE RELATIONSHIP
TO THE NEED TO PROTECTS THE PUBLIC. WHEN THAT ADEQUATE RELATIONSHIP SEES EAST,
THEN ANY FURTHER INFRINGE MENTS ON RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES ESPECIALLY BY ARTICULATE
FIGURES TIME BARS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SEES TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL.