State v. Eric L. Loomis
371 Wis.2d 235, 881 N.W.2d 749, 2016 WI 68 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sentencing court's consideration of a risk assessment tool, such as COMPAS, does not violate a defendant's due process rights, provided the tool is not the determinative factor in the length or type of sentence, and the Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) includes written advisories about the tool's limitations.
Facts:
- The State alleged that Eric L. Loomis was the driver in a drive-by shooting.
- Loomis denied involvement in the shooting itself but admitted to driving the vehicle after the shooting occurred.
- Loomis entered a guilty plea to two less severe charges: attempting to flee a traffic officer and operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent.
- As part of a plea agreement, three more serious charges related to the shooting were dismissed but agreed to be 'read in' for consideration at sentencing.
- A Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) was prepared for the court, which included a risk assessment generated by the COMPAS tool.
- The COMPAS assessment indicated that Loomis was at a 'high risk' for general, violent, and pretrial recidivism.
- The PSI itself contained a warning that COMPAS risk scores are not intended to determine the severity of a sentence or whether an offender is incarcerated.
Procedural Posture:
- Loomis pleaded guilty in the circuit court (trial court) to two charges, with three other charges being dismissed and read in.
- The circuit court ordered a Presentence Investigation Report, which included a COMPAS risk assessment.
- At sentencing, the circuit court referenced the COMPAS report's conclusion that Loomis was 'high risk' and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
- Loomis filed a post-conviction motion for a resentencing hearing, arguing the court's use of the COMPAS report violated his due process rights.
- The circuit court denied the post-conviction motion, stating that the sentence would have been the same even without the COMPAS assessment.
- Loomis, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's denial to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin to decide the due process question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a sentencing court's consideration of a COMPAS risk assessment violate a defendant's right to due process because the tool is proprietary, based on group data, and considers gender?
Opinions:
Majority - Ann Walsh Bradley, J.
No, a sentencing court's consideration of a COMPAS risk assessment does not violate a defendant's right to due process, provided its use is properly circumscribed with limitations and cautions. The court reasoned that while the tool has potential due process implications, they can be managed with proper safeguards. First, while COMPAS is proprietary, a defendant can review and challenge the inputs and resulting scores, distinguishing it from cases where secret information was used. Second, to address the right to an individualized sentence, the court held that COMPAS scores cannot be the determinative factor; they are merely one piece of information for a court to consider alongside traditional sentencing factors. Third, the tool's use of gender is permissible because it is based on statistical data showing different recidivism rates between genders, which promotes accuracy rather than serving a discriminatory purpose. The court established that a PSI including a COMPAS report must contain specific warnings about the tool's limitations, including that it is based on group data, has not been cross-validated for a Wisconsin population, and has been criticized for potential racial bias. Because the circuit court in this case stated it would have imposed the same sentence without COMPAS and used it only to corroborate its conclusions based on other factors, Loomis's due process rights were not violated.
Concurring - Patience Drake Roggensack, C.J.
I agree with the majority's conclusion but write to clarify the distinction between a court 'considering' and 'relying on' a COMPAS assessment. While a court may consider a COMPAS score as one of many factors in its decision-making process, it may not rely on it, meaning the sentence cannot be dependent on the score. The majority opinion at times uses these terms interchangeably, which could be misconstrued as permitting reliance. Reliance on COMPAS would violate a defendant's due process rights, and it is critical to maintain that a court can only observe and weigh the score, not depend on it to fashion a sentence.
Concurring - Shirley S. Abrahamson, J.
I join the majority opinion but write separately to make two points. First, a circuit court using a risk assessment tool like COMPAS must explain on the record its reasoning, including the tool's strengths, weaknesses, and relevance to the specific defendant's sentence. Second, the court made a mistake by denying an amicus brief from Northpointe, the creator of COMPAS. Given the proprietary and complex nature of the tool, the court needed more information to make an informed decision and should be more expansive in accepting amicus briefs in technically complex cases.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes a framework for the constitutional use of algorithmic risk assessment tools in criminal sentencing. Rather than prohibiting these controversial tools, the court created procedural safeguards, holding that technology can inform but not determine judicial discretion. The ruling requires transparency about the limitations of such tools, including their proprietary nature, reliance on group data, and potential for bias. This approach sets a significant precedent for other jurisdictions grappling with the tension between evidence-based sentencing practices and fundamental due process rights like individualized sentencing and accuracy.
