Violence Risk and Threat Assessment

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of important considerations in conducting evaluations of violence risk. The potential benefits and clinical applications of consulting social networking sites (SNS) and other internet-based data for these types of forensic evaluations are discussed. Practical, ethical, and legal considerations distinctive to using SNS data in appraising a defendant’s risk for engaging in future acts of violence are also provided. The chapter uses two de-identified, hybridized case examples to illustrate this discussion.

Appendices

Case Profile 1

4.1.1 Type of Evaluation

Juvenile transfer to adult criminal system for adjudication (or waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction).

4.1.2 Case Context

This case involved an adolescent male who allegedly conspired with individuals representing radical Islam through organizations such as ISIS and Al Qa’ida to harm the Pope during his visit to the United States. The youthful defendant was being considered for transfer into the (federal) criminal system. To address relevant questions involving public safety and rehabilitation needs, the evaluators conceptualized the risk assessment to include conclusions regarding both risk level and risk-relevant needs. In addition to the usual “general offending” outcome that we typically use in risk assessment in transfer cases, we also considered the risk of serious harm to others as part of radical Islamic activity.

The evaluee, David Satar, was a 16-year-old Asian male (D.O.B. 7-26-1998) who was charged with one count of attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization and two counts of providing material support to terrorists. Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Ewing requested a mental health evaluation to assist in the determination of appropriateness for waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction.

David was evaluated for approximately 7 h on November 3, 2014 at the Department of Youth Services Center (DYSC) in Worcester, Massachusetts. In addition to a clinical interview, David was administered a risk assessment tool for use with adolescents (the Structured Assessment of Risk Violence in Youth, or SAVRY), a measure of overall intellectual functioning (the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–fourth Edition, or WAIS-IV), a structured inventory of symptoms of mental and emotional disorders specifically designed for use with adolescents (the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument, second Edition, or MAYSI-2) , and a standard objective test of mental and emotional functioning for adolescents (the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent, or MMPI-A).

4.1.3 Sources of Information

Collateral interviews were conducted with David’s parents, Alice Satar and Alec Satar for approximately 2.5 h on November 5, 2014, and with David’s high school soccer and tennis coach, Richard Andrews, for approximately 30 min on November 14, 2014.

The following documents, obtained from Mr. Ewing’s office, were reviewed as part of the evaluation:

• 1. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report of interviews with Worcester Police Department, Worcester High School, and Worcester Board of Education;

• 2. FBI audio and video recording of meeting between David Satar, Jr., and FBI Confidential Human Source;

• 3. Worcester Police Department Operations and Incidents Reports;

• 4. David Satar Jr.’s Middle School and High School Records;

• 5. David Satar Jr.’s Ninth Grade Personal Journal;

• 6. Portions of David Satar Jr.’s YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter Profiles and Postings;

• 7. Department of Children & Families (DCF) Reports;

• 8. Youth Consultation Service (YCS) Records; and

• 9. Psychiatric and Diagnostic Evaluation Reports.

4.1.4 Relevant Background

Family History

David Satar was born on July 26, 1998 to Ms. Alice Satar and Mr. Alec Satar, who are married. David reported that he has one biological sister, Kirsty (age 12). David and Mr. and Ms. Satar reported that, whenever angered as a child, David would physically harm Kirsty and his parents. According to YCS records, David once attempted to kill his sister by choking her and threatened to kill his father with a knife. David reported that he was removed from his home on several occasions between 2007 and 2014. As noted in his DCF record, David and Kirsty were removed from Mr. and Ms. Satar’s physical and legal custody and temporarily placed in foster care in 2007 due to excessive parental use of corporal punishment, which included the use of shoes, spoons, belts, jump ropes and sticks as punishment. David and Kirsty were returned to their parents’ care approximately two weeks later, with continued DCF supervision. According to DCF records, David was again removed from his home in July 2008, due to oppositional/ defiant and aggressive and threatening behaviors towards his mother and sister, and was placed at the Holley Center. YCS reports indicate that David was compliant and demonstrated continued improvement during his time at the Holley Center and successfully completed the residential program in June 2010, upon which he returned to live with his family. Between 2011 and 2014, David was placed at three different youth residential programs and currently resides at DYSC, as of August 2015. Ms. Satar added that with DCF out-of-home placements and his maturation, David’s relationship with his sister has improved.

When asked about family strengths, David replied, “sometimes we watch TV together.” When asked about family challenges, David referred to his anger management problems, multiple removals from his home, and having therapists enter his home. David reported that until one to two years ago, “whenever I didn’t get what I wanted, I would get angry” and resort to using physical violence against his family. According to Ms. Satar, when David was in second or third grade he reported to a guidance counselor that he had no love for his family and that he wanted to “stab his family members.” David denied ever having witnessed domestic violence between Mr. and Ms. Satar. He also denied experiencing any sexual abuse; however, Ms. Satar and DCF records indicated that David was exposed to pornography on a neighbor’s computer during childhood. David reported being physically abused by his parents “once or twice” as a child for misbehaving. DCF records indicate that DCF became involved with the family following allegations of parental physical abuse against David and Kirsty in 2008 to which both Mr. and Ms. Satar admitted to the use of corporal punishment to discipline their children. David also noted that he physically assaulted his sister on multiple occasions when he was “little,” and once “gave her a black eye.” Since being placed at DYSC, David reported a recent improvement in his relationship with his parents and sister. He reported his family visits him weekly and he feels closer to them than when he was first arrested.

Medical and Mental Health History

David stated that he had never received a behavioral health diagnosis. Ms. Satar, by contrast, reported that David had been evaluated by several psychiatrists throughout his childhood and that they had suggested several diagnoses, such as Delusional Disorder and Schizotypal Personality Disorder. She added, “I was never told exactly what his problem was.” Prior evaluation records, between 2007 and 2011, indicated that David had received, from various clinicians, diagnoses of Delusional Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Impulsive Control Disorder, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-Combined subtype, Mood Disorder NOS, possible Reactive Attachment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder-NOS, Bipolar Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, Adjustment Disorder with Disturbances in Mood and Conduct, and/or Autism Spectrum Disorder. In a more recent psychological evaluation (dated 1-13-15), the evaluating psychologist concluded that David’s “history of social ineptness, lack of empathy and emotional distance” is commensurate with an Autism Spectrum disorder diagnosis. In a psychiatric evaluation (dated 3-15-15) conducted with David while at DYSC, the evaluating psychiatrist described him as “a seriously emotionally disturbed youngster who has had a psychotic disorder since childhood…” and indicated that he had met diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia since age 8.

David stated that he had heard one psychiatrist at a group home once describe his behavioral health problems as “anxiety” and “delusions.” He was asked if he thought, based on previous psychiatric evaluations, that he had schizophrenia—to which he replied, “maybe.” When asked what symptoms of schizophrenia he observes in himself, he commented, “I would go through phases in life and base my whole life around it.” As an example of these phases, he used his transition from moderate to extremist Islam and said that when he transitioned to being an extremist he felt as though he had found “the truth.” Several of David’ psychiatric evaluations conducted between 2007 and 2011 commented similarly on his affect, body language, and communication skills. David’s evaluating physician from a February 12, 2010 psychiatric evaluation said that David’s speech had “abnormally choppy rhythm, answering sentences one word at a time.” Another psychological evaluation (dated 10/19/2010), conducted when David was 11, described his presenting affect as “very blunted and preoccupied.” This evaluation also noted, “David also had verbalized some misunderstanding of other people’s feelings. He does not understand the context of threatening to kill people and how that could make them angry with him.”

David said that when he was younger he received in-home and outpatient psychotherapy and underwent several psychological evaluations. Mr. Satar stated that between 2007 and 2008 David was admitted on multiple occasions to the Psychiatric Crisis Inpatient Center for his homicidal behavior towards his parents and sister and destruction of property at home. Records indicate that David’s DCF case worker referred him to Massachusetts Psychological Services for individual and family counseling to address his sexually inappropriate behavior, as part of which he received individual and family therapy on a weekly basis from November 2009 to March 2011. When asked if he thought therapy was helpful, David replied, “a little…It helped me stop getting angry. I started behaving better.” Mr. Satar stated that David and his family received DCF behavioral health services from February 2007 until November 2013. Both David and Ms. Satar reported that several clinicians had recommended that he take medication to address his emotional distress. David said that he never took the medications because he felt he “didn’t need them.” Ms. Satar added that she and Mr. Satar decided against giving David medication because they were fearful of side effects and did not want medication to interfere with his academic performance. David reported that he was “too stubborn” to take medications that a psychiatrist once recommended, but that he would consider using medications now if it would “make it easier for me to think about things.”

Educational History

David reported that he attended one elementary school. He reported that his grades were in the A to B range and his attendance was regular. In third grade, he said, he would get into fights with other students on a monthly basis and had to sit for multiple lunch detentions. David denied failing or skipping any grades in elementary school, having an IEP, or participating in any after-school activities. David reported that he attended one middle school. He described his attendance as “good” and “regular.” He described his behavior during middle school as “mostly good” and reported getting involved in one fight in fifth grade with a male student who was bullying him. He said that he mostly earned As and some Bs, was enrolled in all honors classes, and joined the National Junior Honor Society in eighth grade. Ms. Satar reported that David’s middle school teachers would tell her that they were “happy to have a student like him.” Ms. Satar added that David was diligent about his school work, never asking for assistance in completing assignments, and that his anger never kept him from going to school. As reported in a psychological evaluation (dated 11/23/2007), David was administered the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, on which he earned a Full-Scale IQ of 123, placing him in the 94th percentile and Superior Range of intellectual ability for same-aged peers. David reported that he attended Worcester High School for ninth grade and described his attendance as “regular.” Worcester High School records note that David received a three-day out-of-school suspension for “touching a girl.” David further explained that he had seen other kids touching girls in class and thought it would be “funny” if he did so as well. He stated that he apologized to the girl and met with his guidance counselor weekly until the end of the year. David’s Worcester High School records indicate that David was enrolled in honors courses and received mostly A’s and B’s—and one C—for his courses. David stated that he played soccer and tennis while in ninth grade. His soccer and tennis couch, Mr. Richard Andrews, reported that David “never missed practice” and that he was “very smart.”

When asked during the present evaluation what he aspires to do in the next five to 10 years, David said he wanted to attend a Muslim college in California (Zaytuna College) to study Islam. He said that he would like to become an imam, build a mosque, and teach others about Islam. He added that he might like to become a farmer. He reported that he would probably attempt to achieve these goals while living in the United States within a Muslim community and does not know if he would ever really move to another country.

Substance Abuse History

David and Mr. and Ms. Satar all reported that David does not use alcohol or drugs. DCF records report no evidence of substance use by David or other family members.

Social History

David reported only having friends in school, and no close friends. He stated that his friends at school are both girls and boys, all close to his age. Mr. Andrews said, “Socially, he (David) did not have a group of friends he hung out with. He only hung out with kids at practice. He was totally solo.” Mr. Satar commented, “he has to spend time with friends at school” as “he never hung out with friends outside of school.” According to a DCF assessment conducted on May 19, 2014, David “does not have any friends and has poor social skills.” David wrote in his journal (dated 8/18/2013) that he tries “to interact with everyone. Sometimes it feels like I might make people go away because I annoy them. I want to change somehow to make people like me more because sometimes I feel lonely.”

David stated that he was interested in super heroes when he was in the fifth grade, and Star Wars in sixth grade. Ms. Satar commented that David would enter phases in which he would be obsessed with acting like whomever or whatever he admired. David said that he now enjoys listening to lectures on Islam, playing videogames, reading, and playing soccer and tennis. He also described spending “a lot” of time on the computer. He added that he had never had a girlfriend, but had originally wanted (as he wrote in his journal) 15 wives and 30 children. He said during the present evaluation that he would now like at least four wives, as the Quran allows.

David stated that he converted to Islam at 13-years-old. He said that during seventh grade he was interested in Al Qa’ida and would talk about it in school. Ms. Satar commented that when David was in seventh and eighth grades, his feelings for Islam were “very strong” as evidenced by his learning Arabic and telling people “he was a prophet” and that when he was born “he was supposed to go to a Muslim family and instead, Satan sent him to his current family.” Mr. and Ms. Satar stated that they were confused as to how David could have become interested in Islam, as they did not raise him in a religion and he had no Muslim friends. Mr. Satar said that David might have been exposed to Muslim students and staff when he attended school in Albany, NY. Ms. Satar said that David may also have obtained information on Islam from his phone, as “he always kept busy with the phone.” She reflected on David’s conversion to Islam and commented, “I think he wanted something in life that made him feel like he had a purpose and he could be a hero.” She noted that she and Mr. Satar were not upset that David wanted to become Muslim as they thought it would provide him peace given all his anger; however, they never thought he would turn to ISIS.

David reported that he transitioned more towards modern Islam in the eighth grade, but returned to conservative Islam in ninth grade. It was in ninth grade, he stated, that he grew interested in ISIS from watching the news and reading material on the Islamic State. David stated that he came to support ISIS because he realized that “they were the only ones enforcing the sharia and defending Muslims.” When asked if he supports war and jihad, David replied that he is “OK” with both because it “benefits people in the Islamic State…they can hear the message of Allah and become better people.” David reported during the present evaluation that he “wanted to move anywhere in the Islamic State.” When asked why he wanted to do this, David replied, “People are living in the Islamic State and have everything they need and the only thing they have to worry about is the US dropping bombs on them.” He stated that he will still hold his current ideas and beliefs in 20 years.

David stated that prior to his arrest, he primarily learned about Islam through Islamic extremist online propaganda. He commented, “I was always learning by myself and I formed my own version of Islam through the internet. My first version (of Islam) wasn’t good enough; it was deviant…I twisted the facts I got. When I first converted, the Islam I knew was from the extremists.” He did say that before his arrest, he met regularly with an imam but that he would often argue with him, as the imam’s Islamic practice “contradicted what I believed (from the internet).” He described himself as initially “stubborn” in his beliefs about what Islam represented. David added that he had met with a different imam while at DYSC. In these meetings, he said, the imam provided him with reading materials on refuting ISIS and education on the different schools of Sunni Islamic law. David said that meeting with this imam has led him to consider if what he originally thought about ISIS is “wrong” and that ISIS does not represent “real Islam.” Further, David was asked if he believed that ISIS soldiers and others’ support of ISIS is delusional; David commented that ISIS leaders may say things that can be misconstrued as delusions and that leaders may “be trying to take advantage of people.” When asked if he thought his previous convictions about joining ISIS were delusional in nature, he replied, “I would think they were delusions.”

Offense History

David reported that he had not been arrested prior to his current charges. However, both he and Mr. and Ms. Satar indicated several contacts with Worcester Police between 2007 and 2014, including incidents of child abuse of David and Kirsty by Mr. and Ms. Satar, assaultive and threatening behavior by David against his family members, and one incident in which David ran away from home after a disagreement with his family and returned a few hours later. According to the Affidavit, the Worcester Police Department was dispatched in May 2013 to Worcester Middle School after a school security officer alerted law enforcement to David’s desire to “follow Al Qa’ida websites and may be becoming radicalized.” As stated in Worcester Police Department records, law enforcement arrived at Worcester High School on March 15, 2014 after David’s English teacher reported to police that he had written a paper for class stating that he “wanted to join ISIS.”

David is currently charged with one count of attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization and two counts of providing material support to terrorists. The Affidavit further states that, beginning in the spring of 2014, David had been inspired by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and was planning a violent attack during the Papal visit to New York in September 2015 and that he believed this and other attacks he was planning “would support ISIL’s objectives, and/or travel outside of the United States to fight on ISIL’s behalf.” The Affidavit explains that David planned to use a sniper rifle to assassinate Pope Francis and planned to use a homemade weapon of mass destruction during the Papal public mass to kill and injure attendees. These records also note that David frequently used social media to openly express his desire to join ISIL, that he told law enforcement that he would “gladly serve ISIS anywhere and anytime,” and wrote on social media that he “would have my turn soon.” Records indicate that given David’s online activities and statements in support of ISIL, law enforcement instructed two undercover federal employees to contact David through social media and an FBI Confidential Human Source to interact with him in person to gather more details of his plans for a terrorist attack.

4.1.5 Behavioral Observations and Mental Status

David Satar presented as a 16-year-old Asian male of average height and medium build who appeared his stated age. David’s speech was clear and relevant, but he spoke in a slow and halting tone. He reported that he prefers to text his thoughts as it is difficult for him to “think of what to say” if he must speak in person. He denied having any auditory, visual, or motor problems, or head injuries, throughout his lifetime. David appeared reserved, acted withdrawn, and demonstrated blunted affect throughout much of the evaluation. However, he was cooperative and able to exert good effort and complete all required tasks.

4.1.6 Summary of Test Results

On a measure of overall intellectual functioning (the WAIS-IV), David was measured as performing in the Average to High Average range (Full Scale IQ = 110), placing him in the 75th percentile relative to others his age. He measured in the High Average range for verbal tasks (VCI = 118; 88th percentile). He scored in the Average range for processing speed (PSI = 94; 34th percentile), performance tasks (PRI = 109; 73rd percentile) and working memory (WMI = 108; 70th percentile), relative to same-aged peers. David’s verbal capacities may be considered relative strengths on which to build.

On a structured inventory of symptoms of mental and emotional disorders specifically designed for use with adolescents (MAYSI-2), David denied any symptoms. He was asked multiple times if he had noticed any changes in his mood, thoughts, or behaviors within the past few months that MAYSI-2 items best captured, but denied such changes. His lack of endorsement is inconsistent with his extensive mental health records that document severe fluctuations in mood, impulse control issues, inappropriate sexual behavior, bizarre thought patterns, and homicidal ideation towards his family in the past.

David completed the MMPI-A as part of the original evaluation to measure his current mental and emotional functioning. David was cooperative and attentive while completing the MMPI-A. His responses yielded a valid profile (Welsh Code 236/40 51:879# L”K′ + -/F:), but suggest that results are only a marginally valid description of David’s current functioning because of his response style, which involved a tendency to deny unusual thoughts and experiences in a naïve, rigid fashion. As a consequence, the clinical scales may underestimate the extent and severity of behavioral health symptoms that are present. Individuals with such profiles tend to deny psychological distress, minimize faults, and lack self-awareness. His responses suggest that he is likely to take an inflexible and rigid approach to problems, project an excessively positive self-image, lack tolerance towards others’ failings, and struggle to cooperate fully with treatment. His adolescent clinical scales are within normal limits, which is somewhat atypical for adolescents in correctional settings (although this may be partly a function of his response style, just described). His clinical profile did contain elevations for some personality characteristics that are consistent with individuals who tend to be pessimistic and unable to experience pleasure, with few or no friends. With regard to interpersonal relationships, his responses suggest that he has problems with social relationships and prefers being alone. David did endorse content suggesting a desire to succeed in life.

4.1.7 Diagnostic Conclusions

No specific diagnoses were made as part of this evaluation.

4.1.8 Summary of Data Relevant to Psycho-Legal Opinion

The SAVRY was completed based on information obtained from David and collateral sources as part of the current evaluation. The SAVRY is a structured risk assessment tool for use with adolescents that aids in determining an adolescent’s future risk for violence. David’s current level of risk, which is based upon the presence and absence of various risk and protective factors, appears to be high for future violence relative to other youth being considered for decertification.

There are a number of strengths or absence-of-deficits that should be noted. David does not experience the following: history of nonviolent offending; past supervision/intervention failures (DCF records indicate that David attended all DCF-mandated therapy sessions and YCS documents report that he was cooperative and engaged in treatment during his out-of-home placement; David reported that previous therapy helped him not get angry as much and made him more social); history of self-harm or suicide attempts; early caregiver disruption; poor school achievement; peer delinquency; poor parental management (DCF records indicate that Mr. and Ms. Satar, with the assistance of DCF involvement and therapy, actively invested in David’s behavioral health treatment); community disorganization; substance-use difficulties; Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity difficulties; and low interest/commitment to school.

However, he presents a high risk of re-offense based on the presence of nine particularly strong risk factors: (1) history of violence (history of physically assaulting his family members and causing property damage); (2) early initiation of violence (history of aggressive and threatening behaviors toward family; fights with other children); (3) childhood history of maltreatment (David and his sister were removed from the home due to substantiated claims of child abuse); (4) stress and poor coping (when under stress David would become aggressive and physically destructive); (5) negative attitudes (David stated that he is supportive of war and jihad; FBI records note that David used social media to promote ISIS propaganda and speak with ISIS supporters as he devised and planned his attack during the papal visit); (6) risk taking/impulsivity (prior neurological reports indicate David’s profile is consistent with Impulse Control Disorder; however, David stated that he now “thinks things through;” DCF records indicate that David engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with peers); (7) anger management problems (between 2008 and 2014, David received intensive outpatient behavioral health services and was removed from the home on multiple occasions due to his aggressive behaviors towards his family); (8) low empathy/remorse (on several occasions, David denied feeling remorseful after injuring his family or causing damage when he was angry; David reported that, should he be released and arrested again for terroristic activities that he will not be concerned as he “did it for the right cause”); and (9) poor compliance with rules (David stated that he realizes the goal of the juvenile justice system is to “change” him, but he noted that he feels that it will not be able to do so and that he will continue to hold the same religious beliefs and ideals 20 years from now).

4.1.9 Clinical Forensic Opinion

In our opinion, based on all of the above, David has treatment/rehabilitation needs in the following areas:

• 1. Ongoing evaluation and treatment for behavioral health needs;

• 2. Training and counseling in anger management and social skills;

• 3. Continued emphasis on positive and appropriate peer relationships and involvement in structured activities; and

• 4. Continued interactions with an imam regarding traditional Islamic beliefs and practice.

David should be considered at high risk for future violent offending and with multiple rehabilitation needs. Some of these needs could be addressed in the juvenile justice system. Although there are no recognized interventions for addressing radical Islam in the juvenile justice system, informal meetings with a community-based imam appear to be helpful to David in gaining perspective about ISIS and encouraging him to practice his faith as part of a traditional Islamic community. David’s extensive mental health history and mid-adolescent age position him to be developmentally underprepared with the psychosocial maturity and cognitive capacities necessary to exercise clear and rational decision making. However, David now shows less resistance to the idea that his previously held religious beliefs may have been flawed as well as to the possibility of his having a behavioral health disorder that could be helped with psychotropic medication. He has treatment needs related to his anger management, social skills, engagement in structured activities and positive peer relationships, and further evaluation of underlying psychological distress potentially related to an anxiety disorder and/or personality disorder, such as schizotypal personality disorder. David’s academic performance in classes and cognitive strengths in verbal reasoning could be positive assets on which to build his engagement in structured activities and involvement with positive and prosocial peers. David possesses strengths that may positively influence continued development, including having supportive parents who are invested in his rehabilitation and other active protective factors (e.g., his interest in sports and spiritual commitment). David appears more amenable to certain kinds of intervention within the juvenile justice system (e.g., behavioral health treatment, religious counseling). It is strongly recommended that David continue to receive counseling from a community-based imam to further and maintain his cognitive and psychosocial maturation regarding his religious beliefs and means of practicing his Islamic faith. Given his previous radicalized belief system, difficulties living with his family in the community, and compliance in previous residential group homes, however, David likely will need long-term, highly structured interventions in a high security residential placement, where he can receive specialized mental health services. It is also noteworthy that he appears comfortable interacting digitally, which has implications that are both positive and problematic. He was apparently persuaded by much of what he read and learned from the internet with respect to radical Islam, so the unmonitored access to certain internet sites could be highly problematic. However, he probably has the potential to interact with rehabilitative individuals online rather than face-to-face, which could increase his access to individuals who could assist in his ongoing rehabilitation.

4.1.10 Recommendations

There are three areas in which David has treatment/rehabilitation needs that the juvenile justice system may be able to address to reduce David’s risk for future offending. These areas include: (1) further evaluation and ongoing psychiatric management and behavioral treatment of David’s current mental health needs; (2) training and counseling specific to anger management and social skills; and (3) a continued emphasis on positive and appropriate peer and adult relationships and involvement in structured activities.

First, David may require further evaluation and treatment of his mental health needs. Although he denied any current psychological problems on the MAYSI-2 and MMPI-A, his response style suggested that he minimizes psychological distress and lacks awareness regarding his own behavior. Since 2007, David has undergone several diagnostic evaluations from different providers for his aggressive behavior towards his family, inappropriate sexual behavior, and anger and irritability. These evaluations have yielded various diagnoses to explain David’s symptomatic profile. Accordingly, David may benefit from further evaluation and treatment. Individual and family therapy may assist in establishing positive relationships between David and his family. Psychopharmacological intervention has been previously recommended by evaluating clinicians. Coupled with counseling, medication intervention may contribute to improving David’s mental and emotional functioning, especially at home.

Second, David has treatment needs in the areas of anger management and social skills. When asked how he handles anger, David responded, “I don’t really get angry.” However, he as a history of physical aggression toward his sister, his parents, and property. People who call him a “terrorist” irritate him and his anger tends to linger after he fights. In addition, David groped a female classmate after observing other kids in class touch girls and thought it would get him positive attention from classmates. Skills-based training and counseling in anger management and social skills may allow David to expand his current skills for remaining calm and effectively communicating his needs with his family, peers, and other adults in stressful situations.

Third, David would benefit from involvement in more positive peer relationships and structured activities. He does not have any good friends and rarely speaks with peers. David described a desire for friends, but noted his peers perceive him as weird. He spends most of his time each day on the computer. FBI records indicate he used multiple social media accounts to promote ISIL propaganda and communicate with other ISIS supporters. Interacting with positive mentors and prosocial peers in structured activities may decrease David’s fervent desires to move to the Islamic State and promote his investment in his life here in the United States.

The juvenile system is structured to provide rehabilitative interventions to youth to reduce the risk that they will reoffend by committing crimes motivated by more commonly-observed influences (e.g., monetary gain, property, functioning as part of an antisocial group, anger/jealousy/revenge). Although this system is not established to reduce the risk that a youth who describes himself as committed to radical Islam will attempt to commit further acts of holy war, it appears David’s informal weekly sessions with an imam may be changing his views about Islam and ISIL. During our evaluation, was beginning to view ISIL as “not Islam.” Additionally, he described a desire to develop a good working knowledge of the Islamic faith and practice by attending a Muslim university in the United States.

4.1.11 How Did Social Media Impact This Case?

Social media data were an important part of this evaluation. These data were obtained from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which provided them as part of the referral. This meant that the evaluation was court-ordered, with the prosecution making this request as part of the transfer motion in rebuttal to the defense transfer evaluation. Since the authorization to proceed with the evaluation was subsumed under court order, it was not necessary to seek the youth’s assent, or the permission of his attorney or parent, to review them.

SNS data in this case were particularly relevant because of the defendant David’s use of social media (and other internet-based material) in developing his views about radical Islam. David was described by his mother as “always on his phone,” and he talked about his exposure to Islamic propaganda and its role in helping him develop his “own version of Islam.” His interest in Al Qa’ida websites was reported by a school security officer to the federal authorities. He used social media to express his desire to join ISIS and indicate that he “would have my turn soon” after being contacted on SNS by undercover federal agents. Clearly this information was relevant to his behavior and thinking in becoming a proponent of radical Islam.

The question of the reliability of the SNS data in this case—whether it reflected an accurate accounting of his behavior, and the meaning of this behavior in the context of risk assessment—is more complex. The SNS data were used for several purposes. They provided behavioral descriptions, helped develop hypotheses, and targeted areas for investigation. David himself confirmed the accuracy of the SNS data through direct questioning during the interview. The most challenging question involved what had contributed to his seeking and/or responding affirmatively to those promoting radical Islam on SNS. Was it developmental immaturity? Behavioral health deficits? The desire for promised rewards? A serious religious conversion? These SNS data did appear authentic, both because they had been obtained and validated by law enforcement officials and because David acknowledged their accuracy. With the question of accuracy addressed, we were able to give more credibility to the SNS information than typically we would have with most collateral information. This both created a solid foundation and allowed us to develop a line of questioning that was valuable in addressing the issues particularly salient for reoffense risk. The SNS data helped disentangle three possibilities just cited, leading to a better-informed risk assessment.

Case Profile 2

4.1.1 Type of Evaluation

Risk assessment for purposes of determining federal sentencing.

4.1.2 Case Context

In this case, Tara Schmidt, a young adult female, was charged with the federal offense of stalking via electronic communication an older man who had conducted an alumnus interview as part of Ms. Schmidt’s application for admission to graduate school in criminology. The evaluator was retained by the defense to conduct a federal sentencing evaluation, and SNS data was provided to the evaluator as part of the discovery. Ms. Schmidt provided informed consent to participate in the evaluation. As we discussed earlier in this chapter, we did not ask her specifically about reviewing any particular content within the records. We anticipate expanding our consent process in future cases to more specifically reference SNS data when they are part of the records.

Tara Schmidt was a 27-year-old white female (D.O.B.: 11/26/1988) who was charged with one count of stalking via electronic communication (18 U.S.C. § 2261A). A request for a mental health evaluation to provide the defense with information relevant to sentencing, pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines, was made by court-appointed counsel.

Ms. Schmidt was evaluated for approximately 0.5 h on December 4, 2015 at the Federal Detention Center in Butner, North Carolina. She responded to the initial portion of a clinical interview before we ended the session due to the arrival of her parents for a family visit. The evaluation resumed on December 11, 2015 for 4 hours. In addition to completing the clinical interview, Ms. Schmidt was administered a standard screening instrument for symptoms of mental and emotional disorder (the Brief Symptom Inventory, or BSI) reported at two times: [1] during the most recent 7 days, and [2] during the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) search of her apartment on February 21, 2017. She also completed an objective measure of mental and emotional functioning (the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, second edition, or MMPI-2) and a standard measure of risk and need factors for adult offenders (the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory, or LS/CMI).

4.1.3 Sources of Information

The following documents, obtained from Ms. Schmidt’s attorney, were also reviewed as part of the evaluation:

• 1. Screenshots of Email Chain Regarding Tara Schmidt’s New York University School of Criminology Alumni Interview with Alex Grimes (dated between 2/2/2012 and 2/20/2012);

• 2. Screenshots of Twitter Account for “Alex Grimes” (created on 2/1/2013);

• 3. Screenshots of Pinterest Account for “Alex Grimes” (created on 2/1/2013);

• 4. Screenshots of Wordpress Blog for “Alex Grimes” (created on 2/1/2013);

• 5. Records of Three LinkedIn Accounts for “Alex Grimes” (created on 2/3/2013, 2/10/2013, and 3/15/2013);

• 6. Screenshots of Emails from Alex Grimes Regarding Unrequested Pizza Deliveries (dated 5/19/2013, 5/20/2013, and 5/21/2013);

• 7. Screenshots of Backpage Post by “Alex Grimes” (dated 5/19/2013);

• 8. Screenshots of Voicemails Received by Alex Grimes from Unknown Phone Numbers (calls dated from 2/2/2013 to 3/10/2013);

• 9. Better Business Bureau Complaint Filed by “Georgia Schmidt” against Alex Grimes (dated 5/16/2013);

• 10. Records of Craigslist Posts Associated with georgiaschmidt123@gmail.com (posts made on 9/20/2013, 9/21/2013, and 9/24/2013):

• 11. Screenshots of gradcafe posts alleging assault by Alex Grimes (dated 9/24/2013);

• 12. Screenshots of Reddit posts alleging assault by Alex Grimes (dated 9/25/2013);

• 13. Screenshots of medhelp.org forum posts alleging assault by Alex Grimes (dated 9/26/2013);

• 14. Screenshots of YouTube Account for “Alex Grimes” (dated 12/30/2013);

• 15. Screenshots of LinkedIn Profile for Tara Schmidt (dated 12/30/2013);

• 16. Screenshots of Two Twitter Accounts Alleging Assault by Alex Grimes (created 2/20/2014);

• 17. Screenshots of Wikipedia Page for Alex Grimes (dated 2/25/2014);

• 18. Screenshots of Facebook Profile for Tara Schmidt (dated 3/5/2014);

• 19. Federal Bureau of Investigation Electronic Communication Request to Open Computer Intrusion and Cyber Stalking Investigation Against Tara Schmidt (dated 3/10/2014);

• 20. Federal Bureau of Investigation Interview of Alexander Grimes (conducted on 3/25/2014);

• 21. Federal Bureau of Investigation Interview of Alexander Grimes (conducted on 4/15/2014);

• 22. Federal Bureau of Investigation Interview of Margaret Grimes (conducted on 4/17/2014);

• 23. Audio Recording of Federal Bureau of Investigation Interview of Andrea Parks (conducted on 5/13/2014);

• 24. United States District Court for the District of North Carolina Application for Search Warrant for Information Associated with Taraschmidt@gmail.com Stored at Google Headquarters (dated 5/30/2014);

• 25. Federal Bureau of Investigation Interview of Wendy Smith (conducted on 1/6/2015);

• 26. Federal Bureau of Investigation Interview of Christian Jones (conducted on 1/9/2015);

• 27. United States District Court for the Western District of Arizona Application for Search Warrant for the Residence of Tara Schmidt (dated 1/29/2015);

• 28. Statement from “Wife of Victim #1” (dated 2/2/2015);

• 29. Statement from “Female Colleague of Victim #1 and Named Victim in the Investigation” (dated 2/2/2015); and

• 30. Statement from New York University School of Criminology Regarding Tara Schmidt (dated 2/2/2015).

To obtain information about Ms. Schmidt’s offense history, online records of common pleas court docket sheets were also reviewed. Ms. Schmidt provided contact information for two collateral contacts: [1] her father, George Schmidt and [2] her mother, Karen Schmidt. Repeated attempts to contact George and Karen Schmidt were unsuccessful, however. Ms. Schmidt also provided names for two additional contacts: [3] her former roommate, Patrick Fields, and [4] her former coworker, Angela Hall. At the time this report was submitted, we were still seeking to contact these individuals and indicated to the court that an amended report would be submitted with their information if we were successful.

4.1.4 Relevant Background

Historical information was obtained from the collateral sources described above as well as from Ms. Schmidt. Whenever possible, we assessed the consistency of self-reported information with that obtained from collateral sources.

Family History

Tara Schmidt was born in 1988 in Hamburg, Germany. The area where she lived in Germany was “very nice, almost like a resort town.” Her family moved to North Carolina in 1992 after her father obtained a job. The family has lived in North Carolina since that time. Her father was a librarian and her mother primarily worked as a teacher, but both are now retired. When asked about her family’s strengths, Ms. Schmidt said her parents are “very supportive” and that her mother is “brilliant” while her father “has great work ethic.” Regarding family challenges, she reported her father was occasionally out of work when she was growing up. She never experienced any physical, emotional, or sexual abuse during his childhood, and she was not aware of anyone in her family having been involved in the criminal justice system (her current circumstances excepted).

Educational History

Ms. Schmidt reported that she attended international school in Hamburg and began kindergarten upon her arrival in the United States. She described her attendance and academic performance as “good” throughout elementary, middle, and high school. In regard to undergraduate education, Ms. Schmidt reported that she auditioned for music schools but “got the best offer” from Arizona State University. She stated that she graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University’s honors college in 2010 with degrees in philosophy and violin performance. Ms. Schmidt reported that she majored in philosophy because she was interested in applying to graduate school in criminology, and she took the GREs twice in pursuit of this goal. She stated that she applied to 20 graduate schools with high GRE scores and an undergraduate GPA of 3.99, which she believed “should have been sufficient to get in.” According to Ms. Schmidt, the only graduate school from which she was rejected was New York University (NYU) School of Criminology. She reported that she accepted an admission offer from the University of Arizona (UA) because the school offered her a full scholarship. Ms. Schmidt stated that she began graduate school in the fall of 2012 and that her initial semester at UA was “tough” as she “adjusted” to her new schedule. However, Ms. Schmidt stated, she enrolled in more writing-focused seminars the following semester and earned better grades, and she currently has a “respectable” A- average. Ms. Schmidt reported that she was placed on academic probation in August 2013 after she “lightened the font” on her transcript so that her C+ grade and her overall GPA would not be visible unless the transcript was printed. She described this manipulation of her transcript as a “one-time deal,” adding that she has had no other disciplinary incidents at UA or any other schools. At the time of Ms. Schmidt’s arrest for the current charges, she was in her third year of graduate school.

Employment History

Since Ms. Schmidt had been enrolled in school for most of her life, her opportunities for employment have been limited to part-time and summer positions. She worked as a file clerk for a Law Firm, which she described as “very boring.” Ms. Schmidt remains committed to becoming a criminologist. Much of her discussion of her current legal circumstances reflected her graduate training. For example, she stated that she has given her attorney a “white paper” arguing that “the statute I’m charged under is unconstitutional.”

Substance Abuse

Ms. Schmidt drinks alcohol occasionally and described her alcohol consumption as “a merlot or beer here and there, or a whiskey at a nice event.” When asked if her alcohol use has ever influenced her behavior, she stated, “It may have altered my judgment a little bit and made me more careless.” Ms. Schmidt denied use of any other substances.

Medical and Mental Health History

Ms. Schmidt did not report any medical concerns or chronic illnesses. Ms. Schmidt likewise did not describe any history of mental health treatment (medications, therapy, or hospitalization). Ms. Schmidt reported that she was unaware of any family history of medical or mental health problems.

Offense History

By her own self-report and online records of common pleas court docket sheets, Ms. Schmidt has no history of criminal offenses. Regarding the present charges, Ms. Schmidt said that she was interviewed by the alleged victim as part the application process for NYU School of Criminology in February 2012. The interview took place in a Starbucks in New York City, she indicated. According to emails that the alleged victim wrote to NYU, Ms. Schmidt was “rude and uncooperative” throughout the interview and was “unwilling to explain her interest in studying criminology, attending graduate school, NYU, or any other material aspects.” The alleged victim wrote that Ms. Schmidt “would be a poor fit” at the graduate school, and Ms. Schmidt was not offered admission.

According to the search warrant application for Ms. Schmidt’s residence, the alleged victim in this case became aware of “multiple Twitter, LinkedIn accounts, and blog postings in his name” in June 2013. These accounts “made false representations concerning [the alleged victim] and the Ku Klux Klan, spousal abuse, [and] molestation of children.” In July 2013, the alleged victim received multiple pizza deliveries that he did not order that were payable upon delivery. Around this time, the alleged victim’s contact information was posted on a website advertising escort services, and he subsequently received many telephone calls requesting these services. In October 2013, the alleged victim’s contact information was included in multiple Craigslist postings soliciting sex from other Craigslist users, and on three occasions individuals came to the alleged victim’s house in response to these postings. Postings were also made on multiple Internet forums in October 2013 stating the writer had been sexually assaulted by the alleged victim. It is alleged that the accounts and postings described above were made by Ms. Schmidt.

4.1.5 Behavioral Observations and Mental Status

Ms. Schmidt presented as a white female of above average height and medium build who appeared her stated age. She was dressed in prison garb and appeared well-groomed. Ms. Schmidt was generally cooperative during the evaluation session, and her speech was clear, coherent, and relevant. Her range of expressed emotion was somewhat limited throughout the evaluation, although she became visibly agitated when discussing situations in which she believed she was treated unfairly (e.g., the search of her apartment, her alumni interview, her current charges). Ms. Schmidt reported no history of head injury or loss of consciousness. She indicated she is fluent in English and German, speaks French and Spanish at a conversational level, and she is learning Cantonese while incarcerated. She wears glasses for nearsightedness, and she denied any auditory or motor problems. Ms. Schmidt has no tattoos, scars, or piercings. She worked consistently on all tasks during the evaluation and seemed to put forth full effort. It would appear, therefore, that this evaluation provides a valid reflection of Ms. Schmidt’s functioning at the time of assessment.

4.1.6 Summary of Test Results

Ms. Schmidt was administered the MMPI-2 to measure her current psychological and personality functioning. Her responses yielded a valid profile that is indicative of frankness and openness (Welsh Code: 9″’ + −80,625/74 13: F-/LK:). Ms. Schmidt had a high-point clinical scale score on the Hypomania (Ma) subscale (T = 85). Individuals with such profiles typically report experiencing emotional lability, erratic behavior, and poor judgment. They may engage in risky or impulsive behavior (e.g., risky sexual behavior, aggression, excessive alcohol or drug use) as part of a general pattern of disorganization. Individuals with such profiles may also present as very self-confident and possibly self-centered, and may be unrealistically convinced of their own importance. Such individuals may become distracted and frustrated easily, and may respond to minor provocation with hostility. Ms. Schmidt endorsed items suggesting she feels resentful of societal standards of conduct and holds some antisocial beliefs. Finally, her elevated scores indicate that she often feels alienated from others and has cynical views about life.

Ms. Schmidt completed two versions of a 53-item standard screening inventory of symptoms of mental and emotional disorders, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). The first concerns her present functioning (described here), and the second describes her thoughts and feelings at the time that her apartment was searched (described below). Ms. Schmidt reported being “extremely” distressed at present by two items on the BSI: [1] other people not giving her proper credit for her achievements, and [2] feeling that people will take advantage of her if she lets them. She endorsed ten items as “quite a bit” distressing. She attributed most of her symptoms to the experience of being incarcerated, but she noted that people not giving her credit for her achievements is “always big for me generally.” The BSI includes nine syndrome scales and three scales designed to measure general psychopathology and psychological distress. Scores of 63 or greater on these scales indicate an area of clinical concern relative to the norms for the comparison population. Compared to a non-patient sample, Ms. Schmidt’s scores ranged from 64–80 on the syndrome scales and therefore reached the level of clinical concern across all scales. Her scores were also clinically elevated on all three general psychopathology scales. However, Ms. Schmidt’s responses were only elevated on scales for Phobic Anxiety (PHOB) and Paranoia (PAR) when compared to an outpatient mental health treatment sample.

On the BSI assessing her functioning when her apartment was searched in 2017, Ms. Schmidt endorsed 26 items as “extremely” distressing: [1] nervousness or shakiness inside; [2] feeling afraid in open spaces or on the street; [3] feeling that most people could be trusted; [4] poor appetite; [5] suddenly scared for no reason; [6] feeling lonely even when she was with people; [7] feeling blocked in getting things done; [8] feeling lonely; [9] feeling blue; [10] feeling fearful; [11] feeling that people were unfriendly or disliked her; [12] trouble falling asleep; [13] difficulty making decisions; [14] feeling afraid to travel on buses, subways, or trains; [15] having to avoid certain things, places, or activities because they frightened her; [16] feeling hopeless about the future; [17] trouble concentrating; [18] feeling tense or keyed up; [19] feeling very self-conscious with others; [20] feeling uneasy in crowds; [21] never feeling close to another person; [22] spells of terror or panic; [23] feeling nervous when she was left alone; [24] other people not giving her proper credit for her achievements; [25] feeling so restless that she could not sit still; and [26] feeling that people would take advantage of her if she let them. She reported being “quite a bit” distressed by two items. Ms. Schmidt attributed all of her distress to the unexpected search of her apartment. Compared to a non-patient sample, Ms. Schmidt’s scores ranged from 40–80 on the syndrome scales, with all scales except for the Hostility (HOS) scale reaching the level of clinical concern. Her scores were clinically elevated on all three general psychopathology scales. Ms. Schmidt’s performance on the Phobic Anxiety, Paranoia, Anxiety (ANX), Global Severity Index (GSI), and Positive Symptom Distress Index (PSDI) scales remained elevated when compared to an outpatient mental health treatment sample.

4.1.7 Diagnostic Conclusions

No specific diagnoses were made as part of this evaluation.

4.1.8 Summary of Data Relevant to Psycho-Legal Opinion

Specialized Risk Tool

Ms. Schmidt was administered the Level of Service/ Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), a measure of risk and need factors for adult offenders. On the LS/CMI, respondents are evaluated for their risk level in eight domains, which results in an overall risk level score. Ms. Schmidt’s overall score of 7 on the LS/CMI indicates a low risk for reoffending. She did not score in the high-risk range in any domains. Her scores indicated that she was at medium risk in the domain for pro-criminal attitudes (she reported a commitment to a life without crime, but she also stated she has been “shocked” by the “incompetence of the [legal] system” and finds the conditions of her current jail placement to be unsatisfactory). Ms. Schmidt scored in the low risk range in the following domains: family (she reported close relationships with her parents); companions (she reported that apart from the individuals she has met with in jail, none of her acquaintances are involved in crime); alcohol and drug problems (she reported no history of abusing alcohol and drugs); criminal history (she has no prior arrests); recreation habits (she reported involvement in academic organizations in graduate school and engagement in rewarding hobbies such as playing the violin); education/employment (she reported that she obtained good grades throughout her education and was in her third year of graduate school at the time of her arrest); and antisocial behavior.

Mental State Surrounding the Alleged Offense

When asked about her interactions with the alleged victim, she described him as “condescending about gender,” “unprofessional,” and “arrogant” during her graduate school interview. For example, she reported that the alleged victim told him that “NYU doesn’t want foreign women” and asked whether Ms. Schmidt was proficient in English. Ms. Schmidt also stated that the alleged victim “got touchy-feely and started stroking my leg,” and that he “suggested there would be consequences if I told.” She completed her interview with the alleged victim because “I was taught to be polite.” When asked why she did not report her concerns about her interviewer to the NYU School of Criminology, Ms. Schmidt replied, “Even if I was admitted, they didn’t really want me there. I don’t have time for that; I have my life and I needed to move on.” She believes she was rejected from NYU because of cultural bias.

Ms. Schmidt was also asked about the online accounts and postings made in the alleged victim’s name and the postings containing the alleged victim’s contact information. She stated that the postings were “a parody” that “would be funny.” Although she reported that she “didn’t think anything would come out of [the postings]” apart from “being funny,” she also stated “maybe future interviewees would be prepared” for interactions with the alleged victim after viewing the postings. Because the accounts and postings in the alleged victim’s name were (according to Ms. Schmidt) “stories and not statements of fact,” she believed they should be protected under the First Amendment. And, because the alleged victim was “not physically injured” by the postings, they “seemed reasonable” to her. When asked about the potential consequences of making online accounts in another person’s name, Ms. Schmidt responded, “So what if it’s someone else’s real name? There’s probably someone named Christian Grey; does he get to sue for emotional damages?” She also stated that “if anyone suffered a criminal injury, I would feel bad because that wasn’t my intent. If that’s how it’s perceived, then they have my deepest sympathies.”

4.1.9 Clinical Forensic Opinion

It is clear from a review of the evidence that the harassment of the alleged victim in this matter was extensive, conducted over a period of time and using multiple means. While Ms. Schmidt felt insulted and disrespected by the behavior of the interviewer, she also minimized this anger in some respects (“I don’t have time for (reporting such conduct)…I have my own life…I have to move on”). Both her responses during the interview and her MMPI-2 profile suggested she has, as the oldest child in her family, received much treatment consistent with the view that she is very important. This is realistic and commensurate with her significant accomplishments in some respects. She appeared realistic in her perception that she has faced discrimination growing up.

Several aspects of her functioning may have contributed to her behavior in the present case. Ms. Schmidt does not easily relate to other people, finding it hard to imagine interacting with a romantic partner (for example) beyond areas of shared interest. She did not describe a good understanding that other people might be emotionally harmed by her behavior, and in some respects did not appreciate how angry she was as a consequence of this interview and subsequent rejection by NYU. It is very important to her that her achievements be recognized and valued. None of these characteristics have kept Ms. Schmidt from achieving in multiple, noteworthy areas (music, languages, graduate study in criminology). They do not combine to clearly indicate that she suffers from a personality disorder, an autistic spectrum disorder, or a mood disorder. Possible symptoms of all three are described at present and around the time her apartment was raided, although the influences of incarceration and arrest may account for many of her reactions.

Based on all of the above, it is our opinion that Ms. Schmidt had the capacity to exercise the power of reason and conform her conduct to the law.

4.1.10 Recommendations

Ms. Schmidt has mental health symptoms that could be addressed in the areas of depression, trauma, and limited empathy. If Ms. Schmidt continues to experience symptoms of depression, trauma, or maladaptive interpersonal functioning following disposition of charges, she would be an appropriate candidate for therapy or counseling.

Ms. Schmidt is knowledgeable about certain aspects of the law, and she may be correct that she has a first amendment claim for some of her acts. Yet a therapy intervention in these areas would help her consider the larger context, including potential harm to a variety of parties with certain kinds of behavior—and the alternatives to such behavior that would hopefully provide fair outcomes while not invoking the risk of harm through behavior that is minimized as a “parody.”

As such, she would benefit from:

• 1. Continued assessment to determine the most appropriate diagnosis and treatment for these symptoms; and

• 2. Therapeutic interventions focused on decision-making, empathy, prosocial relationships, and communication skills

4.1.11 How Did Social Media Impact This Case?

In this case, it was alleged that Ms. Schmidt had used social media in an attempt to harm the victim. She did not deny doing so, but minimized the seriousness of the harm. (In addressing this minimization, it was important to be able to show her copies of the social media posts). She also questioned whether his conduct was criminal, framing it as a free speech matter.

The meaning of the social media in contributing to her risk and rehabilitation needs appraisal was complex. One cannot conduct a meaningful risk assessment without documentation of prior instances of threats or physical aggression. In this case, Ms. Schmidt had a virtual absence of both in her history, but the social media documentation made the scope of the alleged harmful behavior clearer than any verbal description could have. Accordingly, it played an important role in the risk appraisal that was part of this federal sentencing evaluation.