In Santos, however, the Defendant did not challenge the validity of the SORA statute, nor did he present any evidence or expert testimony about how risk determinations under the statute are made.
Summary of this case from People v. McFarlandOctober 6, 2009.
Crimes — Sex Offenders — Sex Offender Registration Act. Correction Law — § 168- l (5) (Sex Offender Registration Act; board of examiners of sex offenders; risk assessment guidelines).
In Santos, however, the Defendant did not challenge the validity of the SORA statute, nor did he present any evidence or expert testimony about how risk determinations under the statute are made.
Summary of this case from People v. McFarlandIn Santos, however, the Defendant did not challenge the validity of the SORA statute, nor did he present any evidence or expert testimony about how risk determinations under the statute are made.
Summary of this case from People v. McFarlandFull title:People v. Santos (Juan)
Court:Supreme Court of the State of New York. New York County
Date published: Oct 6, 2009
The expert conceded that approximately 50% of the prison population, many of whom are confined for sex…
People v. OliverIn evaluating this case, this Court notes that the Guideline approach to predicting sexual offender…