Morford to be released

Listen to this article

The State must release Billy Lee Morford from supervision as a sexually violent person under Chapter 980, on Dec. 26, after conceding that it cannot meet the burden of proof required to keep him under watch — clear and convincing evidence that he is likely to reoffend.

On Dec. 19, Morford’s attorney, Robert W. Peterson, moved that he be discharged from supervision. In the absence of an objection by the State, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey A. Wagner granted the motion for discharge, pending notification of the victims, as required by state law.

Morford was initially committed as a sexually violent person in 1997, because although supervised release was ordered, no facility was available. In 2000, the State moved the trial court to reconsider whether release was appropriate, pursuant to sec. 806.07.

In 2001, the court granted the motion for reconsideration, a ruling upheld by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in 2003.

However, in 2004, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that sec. 980.08(6)(m) provides the only vehicle for changing the supervised release status of an individual approved for release, but still institutionalized. In re the Commitment of Morford, 2004 WI 5, 268 Wis.2d 300, 674 N.W.23d 349.

Morford had actually been placed on supervised release in 2003, so the issue was technically moot, but the Supreme Court considered the issue anyway.

Since 2003, he has lived under supervision in state-rented housing.

The State also sought to compel Milwaukee County to build a facility to house Morford and other persons found eligible for supervised release, but the circuit court held that the responsibility rests with the State, a holding affirmed by the court of appeals two months ago. In re Alternative Placement of Morford, 2006 WI App 229, 2006 WL 2947042 (Oct. 17, 2006).

At the motion hearing last week, Assistant District Attorney Rebecca Dallet issued a lengthy prepared statement, underscoring the office’s commitment to the institutionalization and supervision of sexually violent persons, having opposed every petition for supervised release and discharge since the statute went into effect. However, Dallet acknowledged that the State did not have the evidence to continue the supervision of Morford.

Dallett noted that, of seven experts to examine Morford, only two said that he was not appropriate for discharge, but due to the deterioration of his health, those two changed their opinions. In addition, an eighth expert retained also said that he could not testify against discharge.

Dallett noted that Morford has undergone the most intensive rehabilitative program in history, has been on supervised release without violation, is much older than when he committed his crimes, and that his health has been steadily deteriorating. Morford has kidney and bladder cancer, lung disease, heart disease, and is expected to live less than a year, Dallett noted.

Dallett also remarked that the State has, in the past, successfully gone to trial, without any expert witnesses to testify that the defendant still qualifies as a sexually violent person. However, last year, the Supreme Court held that the State’s evidence was insufficient to meet its burden in that case. In re the Commitment of Brown, 2005 WI 29, 279 Wis.2d 102, 693 N.W.2d 715.

As a result of the decision in Brown, Dallett conceded it could not prevail at trial without a single witness: “The State cannot meet its burden of proving that Mr. Morford is still a sexually violent person.”

David Ziemer can be reached by email.