{"id":2140,"date":"2020-05-27T13:20:30","date_gmt":"2020-05-27T18:20:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2140"},"modified":"2020-05-31T13:25:12","modified_gmt":"2020-05-31T18:25:12","slug":"united-states-v-richards-10th-cir-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/05\/27\/united-states-v-richards-10th-cir-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"United States v. Richards (10th Cir. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

United States v. Richards, No. 19\u20138044 (10th Cir. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Defendant was convicted of a sex offense in federal court and amongst the conditions of supervision that were imposed by the court was a requirement that he be subjected to periodic polygraph testing. He objected to this condition and it was overruled by the trial court, and he sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Defendant’s objection on Fifth Amendment grounds to the imposition of the polygraph requirement was premature. At this point, the government was not threatening to impose consequences as a result of a polygraph or his refusal to answer questions. The Court noted that, if at a later date, that was threatened then the Defendant could renew his Fifth Amendment challenge at that point.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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