certification — on its belief — that a prisoner is a “sexually dangerous person” and provides no time limit in which a civil commitment hearing must be held after a certification has been issued. If this pre-commitment detention, which requires no judicial determination and minimal procedural safeguards, constitutes imprisonment, then the constitutionality of the Act is open to question. See Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 612, 123 S.Ct. 2446, 156 L.Ed.2d 544 (2003) (including among ex post facto laws “[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed” (quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390, 3 Dall. 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798))); Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 86, 112 S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298
holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence holding in part that party seeking reformation of deed must show the original intent or agreement of parties by clear and convincing evidence holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied holding that the state must establish insanity and dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence in order to confine an insane convict beyond his criminal sentence when the basis for his original confinement no longer exists