{"id":2305,"date":"2020-11-06T10:59:34","date_gmt":"2020-11-06T16:59:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2305"},"modified":"2020-11-06T10:59:34","modified_gmt":"2020-11-06T16:59:34","slug":"in-re-bilton-s-c-ct-app-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/11\/06\/in-re-bilton-s-c-ct-app-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"In re Bilton (S.C. Ct. App. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

In re Bilton (S.C. Ct. App. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was civilly committed under South Carolina state law after an expert witness testified as the results of a penile plethysmograph (PPG) on the Appellant that the testifying expert did not administer. Appellant appealed on the basis that the admission of that testimony at trial violated his Due Process rights.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. While the Court’s opinion cast considerable doubt on the reliability of the PPG itself, the ultimate holding was that the admission of the test by an expert who did not administer the test violated the Appellant’s rights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n