Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Benton, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Where there was a question as to whether defendant's medical condition made compliance with the existing condition of supervised release that he undergo polygraph exams medically unsafe, the district court's decision to add a condition to defendant's supervised release requiring him to allow his probation officer to speak with his doctor was proper because the modification was reasonably necessary to enforce the existing obligation to participate in testing.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2851 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Randall Allen Herbst lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: May 3, 2021 Filed: May 10, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Randall Herbst is serving a term of supervised release in connection with his conviction for a sex offense. Included among the conditions is participation in polygraph testing. In the face of a claim that it may be unsafe in light of a health issue, the district court1 added a condition requiring him to allow his probation officer or a polygraph examiner to speak with his doctor. Though he challenges this modification, we affirm. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Davies, 380 F.3d 329, 332 (8th Cir. 2004) (reviewing the modification of the conditions of supervised release for an abuse of discretion). The record shows that the modification was reasonably necessary to enforce his existing obligation to participate in polygraph testing. See id. (discussing a district court’s “broad discretion” when modifying release conditions); cf. United States v. Newell, 915 F.3d 587, 590–91 (8th Cir. 2019) (affirming the imposition of a condition requiring polygraph testing). We also decline to address the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim raised in Herbst’s pro se brief. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this type of claim is “usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
