{"id":2453,"date":"2021-02-25T13:26:47","date_gmt":"2021-02-25T19:26:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2453"},"modified":"2021-03-03T13:35:29","modified_gmt":"2021-03-03T19:35:29","slug":"united-states-v-rogers-1st-cir-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2021\/02\/25\/united-states-v-rogers-1st-cir-2021\/","title":{"rendered":"United States v. Rogers (1st Cir. 2021)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

United States v. Rogers, No. 18-2097 (1st Cir. 2021) <\/strong><\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong> Appellant was convicted of a sex offense and incarcerated. Upon release, Appellant was required to complete a treatment program and complete polygraph examinations. Of note, the polygraph condition specified that a failure of a polygraph or invocation of 5th Amendment rights, standing alone, would not be a basis for revocation of supervision.<\/p>\n

After a polygraph examination indicating deception, Appellant admitted to conduct which violated his supervision and was suspended from treatment. On those bases, his supervision was revoked. Appellant argued that the polygraph condition violated his 5th Amendment rights and that, furthermore, his suspension from treatment violated Due Process. The trial court rejected these arguments, and Appellant sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> 1st Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding that appellant had not attempted to invoke his 5th Amendment rights and, in any event, the polygraph condition to which he was subjected did not violate his rights against self incrimination. The Court further held that his suspension from treatment did not violate Due Process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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