United States v. John Manning, No. 12-1014 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - supervised release conditions. Challenge to condition of supervised release to undergo polygraph exam and psychosexual evaluation is dismissed as premature.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1014 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. John Tyler Manning lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: August 7, 2012 Filed: August 9, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. John Manning, who has been released under supervision following a prison term for a child-pornography offense, appeals the district court s1 imposition of new 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. supervised-release conditions requiring him to undergo a polygraph exam and a psychosexual evaluation in connection with sex-offender counseling as directed by his probation officer. We conclude that Manning s Fifth Amendment challenge to these conditions is premature. See United States v. York, 357 F.3d 14, 24-25 (1st Cir. 2004) (rejecting argument that mandatory polygraph violated defendant s Fifth Amendment rights; defendant could not mount generalized Fifth Amendment attack on supervised release on ground that he would be required to answer probation officers questions truthfully; any specific Fifth Amendment objection to incriminating questions that might be asked was premature, and defendant remained free to assert Fifth Amendment privilege if such circumstances were actually to arise); United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1090-92 (11th Cir. 2003) (condition requiring defendant to undergo polygraph test did not violate Fifth Amendment, where it was undisputed that there had not yet been any potentially incriminating question, invocation of privilege against self-incrimination, or government compulsion to testify over valid claim of privilege; hypothetical possibilities do not present cognizable Fifth Amendment claim; if and when defendant were to be forced to testify over valid claim of privilege, he could then raise Fifth Amendment challenge); see also United States v. Muhlenbruch, 682 F.3d 1096, 1102 (8th Cir. 2012) (imposition of conditions of supervised release are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
