Court strikes polygraph requirement from sex offender's sentence

Defendant, a convicted sex offender, appealed from the trial court's sentence, objecting to a condition that required him to submit to a lie detector test as part of the sex-offender treatment plan. The Court of Appeals upholds that objection and strikes the polygraph from the sentence.

The case is United States v. Washington, decided on September 18. When the district court announced the sentence in open court, it did not mention the polygraph. But when the court later issued the sentence in writing, the polygraph requirement turned up for the first time. Under the federal sentencing rules, the defendant must be present at sentencing. While a written judgment may clarify the sentencing provisions, "the spoken version ordinarily controls," the Court of Appeals (Cabranes, Pooler and Oetken [D.J.]) says. In this case, the polygraph requirement represents an improper modification to the spoken sentence. Here is the reasoning:

Polygraph testing can be onerous for a defendant, who may feel at risk of incriminating him‐ or herself. It is also not a necessary or invariable part of sex offender treatment. Many district judges require polygraph testing as part of the sex‐offender‐treatment condition in at least some cases. See generally Migdalia Baerga‐Buffler & James L. Johnson, Sex Offender Management in the Federal Probation and Pretrial Services System, 70 Fed. Prob. 13 (2006); Michael Palmiotto & Scott MacNichol, Supervision of Sex Offenders: A Multi‐Faceted and Collaborative Approach, 74 Fed. Prob. 9 27 (2010). But we learned at oral argument that some district judges, including some judges in the district courts of this Circuit, never allow it.

Interesting that the Court notes what happened at oral argument on the use of polygraphs in cases like this. The Court adds that lie-detectors are "not a necessary or invariable component of sex‐offender
treatment."