According to the dissent, strict adherence to CRC designation would deprive all SVP defendants of the opportunity to present favorable evaluations from non-CRC designated in SVP proceedings. Yet, while they purportedly condemn it, they deliberately overlook that Baughman was, in fact, denied to present two other evaluators he retained by the trial court.

The dissent went to great lengths to point out the most damaging details of the offenses for which Baughman was convicted (as did the majority, though to a lesser extent). Indeed, rehashing Baughman’s previous offenses comprises over half of the dissenting opinion. I would think that a pretty strong indication that Virginia’s SVP proceedings (as well as every other state with similar schemes) are more about revisiting previous offenses than preventing new ones.

But the most concerning matter to me is that the majority didn’t address the trial court’s finding that the cherry-picked record reviewer could testify because “the Attorney General is vested with the authority to determine the relevant evidence to be presented at a probable cause hearing.” Whether evidence is relevant is a COURT decision, not the AG, in ANY proceeding. If any party in any proceeding is authorized to determine what evidence is relevant, then what is the point of having courts at all? That is a very glaring procedural error by the trial judge and frankly, I think he should be evaluated for fitness to serve on the bench.

The trial proceeding here is a good example of the underlying problems with the court system nationwide. Judges essentially defer to the state over nearly the entire process. Judicial discretion is almost always in the state’s favor, orders and opinions written by the state are signed without reading anything in them beyond the judge’s signature block, constitutional rights or either denied or overlooked. While I’m glad that the VASC reversed this dystopian court, I’m still frustrated that it will do almost nothing to address the serious flaws in the overall court system. Also frustrating is the likelihood that the Virginia assembly will look into amending its statutes so SVP proceedings like Baughman’s will stand.

This whole process was a farce and mockery of every legal protection. For starters, the prosecutor went outside of the legally prescribed process and cherry picked a hack who would tell him exactly what he wanted to hear with respect to Galen being an incorrigible predatory offender. By the way, this hack was not even qualified by state standards codified in statute to even make such an evaluation. Then, as I stated earlier, the court stripped him of any possible defense, including the admission of previous exculpatory evidence from the state-approved evaluators.

While I don’t condone Galen’s flaunting the condition of his supervised release which prohibited contact with minors, I even more strongly condemn the government weaponizing the process to retaliate against a man who had really shown the light of truth on what a sham and mockery the state of VA’s SVP / civil commitment process really is.