Dissecting Torsilieri – Why the Pennsylvania Trial Court Decision Matters to Us
Since posting the opinion in Commonwealth v Torsilieri, there has been a lot of confusion and questions as to why this lower court decision from another state is good news for us here in Florida. I want to help unmuddy the waters by explaining the significance of this order for those in Pennsylvania, around the nation and specifically for us here in Florida.
First some history on the Torsilieri case… On July 3, 2017 George Torsilieri was convicted of a sexual offense in Pennsylvania. While he was pending sentencing, the Supreme Court of PA decided a case called Commonwealth v. Muniz which found parts of PA’s sex offender registration scheme unconstitutional. This interesting twist created a lot of confusion, not only over George’s sentence but over the mandatory lifetime registration he was statutorily going to fall under as a Level III sex offender. George argued that SORNA was Unconstitutional because of the presumption that all sexual offenders are dangerous and pose a high risk of recidivation, and that registration and notification procedures are necessary to protect the public from them. He argued that this presumption is not supported by current research and is incorrect. He also argued that contrary to popular belief (and the stated intent of SORNA) registration and notification provisions threaten public safety by preventing reintegration of the offenders as law-abiding citizens.
The trial court agreed with George on several grounds, essentially finding that requiring his registration violated his right to privacy under the PA constitution, but also (and more significantly), this “irebuttable presumption” that all sexual offenders are dangerous and pose a high risk of recidivism deprived him of his right to prove he’s not dangerous and poses a low risk of recidivism. Naturally, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appealed and the case made it’s way to the Supreme Court of that State.
In a long opinion that came out in 2020, the PA Supreme Court considered a lot of factors that other courts never bother to consider most significantly of which is the scientific evidence. They also considered his due process argument and ex post facto argument (essentially, is the registry punitive?). They also considered the same Mendoza-Martinez factors used in Smith v. Doe. The simple result of that case was that George won and PA lost (which is all that is relevant to George Torsilieri), but the more relevant part for all of us is that they wanted to know ‘what is the consensus among the scientific evidence on the risk and recidivism of registered sex offenders and does it support the presumption (1) that all sexual offenders pose a high risk of recidivation and (2) that [the registry] protects the public?’ (I paraphrased). To answer that question, they sent the case back to the lower court to make some factual findings as to whether these presumptions are true or false.
So here we find ourselves, seven years after George’s offense, five years after his conviction, two years after the PA Supreme Court remanded the case in order to answer that question, and we have our answer (and you now have a better understanding of the history of this case). For those negative nellies out there who have posted that the case will be overturned on appeal or PA will simply ignore the decision; been there, done that and they have not ignored the decision since the higher court ruled 2 years ago, so I don’t think they will do so now.
On to the more important aspects of this decision as they specifically relate to all registrants.
The opinion begins with the introduction, “On June 16, 2020 the Honorable Supreme Court of Pennsylvania directed this Court to analyze whether SORNA’s irrebuttable presumption that all sex offenders pose a high risk of reoffending sexually is constitutional”. That’s relevant to ALL registrants because basically within the legislative history of ALL registration statutes in ALL states or the registration ordinances in ALL municipalities, contains some version of the phrase, “The Legislature finds that sexual offenders, especially those who have committed offenses against minors, often pose a high risk of engaging in sexual offenses even after being released from incarceration or commitment and that protection of the public from sexual offenders is a paramount government interest.” That’s taken from Florida’s statute (at 943.0435(12)) but you can find the same copy/paste or variation of that language everywhere from the most populous state to a residency restriction in a small town. The opinion continues by also saying that the Supreme Court asked them to analyze whether the registry was punishment.
During the history of our advocacy we’ve been trying (sometimes successfully but often unsuccessfully) to overcome two conclusions from the awful Smith v. Doe Supreme Court of the United States decision. First is the false conclusion that recidivism rates of people convicted of a sexual offense are “frightening and high”, and the second false conclusion is that “the registry is not punishment”. That SCOTUS decision haunts all of us and this court Opinion debunks both those false conclusions.
While the analysis of the first question was under Pennsylvania’s Constitution, most state’s constitutions are similar. The Court found that the presumption of dangerousness is a stigma (a mark of disgrace associated with a particular circumstance, quality, or person) that marks a class of people without any consideration of individual characteristics or circumstances. The Court also found that the presumption (that registrants pose a high risk of reoffense) was bullshit (my words, not theirs, but the sentiment is the same). And to arrive at that conclusion they examined the scientific evidence!
I can’t describe the Court’s findings as to the punishment issue better than to copy and paste from the order here, “SORNA is unconstitutional both facially and as applied to this Defendant on the bases that it employs an irrebuttable presumption that is not universally applicable and because its punitive nature offends Alleyne and Apprendi; results in a criminal sentence in excess of the statutory maximums; violates Federal and State proscriptions against cruel and unusual punishment; and breaches the separation of powers doctrine.” That says it all. SORNA is punishment.
On to why this decision is helpful to us here in Florida. First, as I quoted from Florida Statute 943.0435(12) above, our statute also contains this irrebuttable presumption of dangerousness and our statute also is extremely punitive. There are currently two cases we fought to bring (and have been brought) which we refer to as the “Ex Post Facto Plus” challenges. If anyone has followed the litigation, has followed our forum and has concerned themselves with the success of our case, will know that we fundraise in order to bring the best experts in our cases and much of our focus is on the scientific evidence which has helped tremendously in this PA case. The fact that another state has considered the scientific evidence, has found the research credible and applied it in a decision favorable to the registrants is hugely persuasive (in our opinion).
So while a decision from a Pennsylvania state court is not binding precedent on us here in Florida, it is significantly persuasive precedence. It is also significant that the evidence presented by registrants here in Florida has been found credible and adopted by the court in Pennsylvania. And finally, lets be happy for anyone who gets off this registry. We are all in this together. Maybe now people who were previously unemployable in Pennsylvania can now get jobs and help support our challenge? Maybe a judge in Florida will feel more comfortable granting relief knowing that another state has already ruled the same way? Maybe this decision gave hope to someone who not long ago felt hopeless like many of us do? This is a great week for the advocacy community!
Our ducks are lined up and one day our day will come!
Please consider donating to help sustain our ex post facto challenge.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you are truly interested in clarifying the case, you need to go back a couple of years. The trial court upheld this man’s claim that the Pennsylvania law was unconstitutional a couple of years ago. The recent action was pursuant to an appeal of that by the state. So in the fullest sense, there is no reason to believe that the state is finished with their appeal. Perhaps the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will agree with the trial court decision, or perhaps they will not agree. But the defendant thought 2 years ago that he had won his case, which obviously was not true. Too early to celebrate. If their Supreme Court disagrees with the trial court judge’s fact finding, they can overturn the decision and throw the whole matter back into limbo. Michigan’s sex offenders began celebrating way too early when its registry was declared unconstitutional. People are already petitioning other Pennsylvania courts citing this case as precedent to have themselves removed from the registry. There is simply no way that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and their legislature are going to sit by idly without further action. The telling part is that Pennsylvania does still have plenty of people on their sex offender registry. Yet the argument in this case would make the law unconstitutional for everyone in that state.
Gerald, I’m sorry you are still confused. He won at the trial level years ago and obtained relief, the Commonwealth appealed it and their Supreme Court affirmed, so he KEPT his relief. While he KEPT his relief, the Supreme Court sent it back to the trial court to “analyze whether SORNA’s irrebuttable presumption that all sex offenders pose a high risk of reoffending sexually is constitutional, and to analyze whether their amendment was punitive”. The trial court CONTINUED to issue opinions favorable to the registrant and in their order wrote, LITERALLY, that the guy’s relief REMAINS granted.
He’s not waiting for relief, he’s not in limbo, he’s WON his case and that WIN is persisting. If PA changes their law two years from now or Torsilieri gets hit by a bus tomorrow is beyond anyone’s awareness at this point, but if the opinion and order from the Court this week or the PA Supreme Court in 2020 didn’t speak for themselves, we tried to simplify it in an easier to read summary for our members.
If you are still dissatisfied with our evaluation of the case you can check what other advocacy affiliates had to say about it… oh wait… they agreed with our assessment!
As for other advocacy affiliates agreeing with your assessment, it doesn’t mean anything if they only read the trial court decision without reading the Supreme Court order that placed the case back into the trial court. Everybody jumped the gun with celebrations when Michigan’s law was held to be unconstitutional. But Michigan simply wrote a new law that is just as unconstitutional and being applied retroactively. There is nothing preventing the state of Pennsylvania appealing the case further. I don’t know how long that takes in Pennsylvania, but it’s a lengthy process here in Michigan.
Gerald, let’s agree to disagree. I’ve read everything from the original sentencing in 2018, to the supreme court opinion in 2020 to last week’s opinion and order.
This decision by the court was remanded down by the Supreme Court. They are aware of the case. I think the opinion is pretty airtight. The plaintiff has been granted relief. I feel pretty good about this one.
If the state files an appeal, so what? They can file a ham sandwich.
Does the state really think they can go back to the SAME Supreme Court, faced with the strong new evidentiary record that court ordered, and convert this loss into a win?
Do we not agree which side has the advantage in this case? A right to appeal is not the same as an advantage. It is certainly not the same as a right to win.
Haters gonna hate!
As much as we try to encourage all points of view, we can also chose to ignore the negative comments that have permeated our forum. Personally, I’m too busy busting my butt for this organization so I don’t have the time to spend on the haters. Our time is better spent fighting the registry than fighting each other.
Tru dat!
FAC Contributor 3, your comments always are clarifying for users like Gerald and me, but they are hard to find! That’s because they no longer appear on the Recent Comments section of the homepage. Gerald’s comments and my comments appear there, but yours don’t, and that’s a shame, because I think more members ought to see what you have to say.
In case any IT volunteers are available to look at that
You are correct. This individual has been granted relief by the lower court and still remains unregistered in the state Pennslyvania, while thousands of other registrants in PA with the same offense, on Sorna sub chapter I, remain on the PA registry for Life! Even individuals whose offense predates any effective date of Sorna/Megan Law in the state of PA because PA State Supreme Court ruled Sorna sub chapter I to be non-punitive. Then reason stands, he should be on Sub chapter I for Life, and not removed entirely from the registry as he is. Make it make sense to thousands of folk who have committed no new offenses, yet remain on PA Sorna/Megan Law now for decades!
BW, you are right. I ran across one petition where the offender cited this case already to claim that he should also be removed. The trial court denied his petition. And it is still very possible that the case here can be overturned on appeal, placing him right back on the registry. I don’t know how people can misread the Supreme Court decision, but it expressly stated that the remand was necessary because they COULDN’T affirm the trial court decision on the facts presented so far.
When it’s the other side that has to appeal, that’s normally a good thing.
That’s awesome, there will be no more SORNA in PA, meaning there will be no more PA registry? That’s how I’m reading it, and since SCOPA remanded it back to the lower court and the lower court ruled in favor or T. So this means they can’t appeal the decision since it went back to lower court to decide. Chester county has their stuff together, when the Munez decision came down and PA did the (fix) they were trying to keep me on, knowing my time was well over due. I went to court in Chester county and was let off the hit list.
This decision to make sorna unconstitutional is still not yet final in that it has to go back to the Supreme court of Pennsylvania.
It will be up to SCOPA to determine the final outcome, but from what I see, it will be judged, at least in part, Unconstitutional.
Some of the other parts may not survive the Chester County ruling, but I believe it has a very good chance of coming out in our favor.
This is still a very good win and could set the precedent for other cases.
Thank you for this. Big help in understanding. This judge laid out our case better than I’ve seen in most arguments against the registry.
“So while a decision from a Pennsylvania state court is not binding precedent on us here in Florida, it is significantly persuasive precedence.”
If one’s conviction was in NJ, which is obviously not in NJ but is within the 3rd district and therefore precedent, what does the ruling mean?
Eh, correction, … which is obviously not in PA…
You are mixing federal and state courts. No state court decision, even if precedential in that state, binds a federal court.
It means nothing to NJ, because this is a State case, not federal.
Thank you. I was finding it all a bit confusing.