WE RESPOND TO YOUR NEEDS 414-271-1440
Federal Appeals Court Upholds Restrictive Supervised Release Terms
The 7th Circuit recently ruled that conditions of supervised release for a sex offender were not overly restrictive. Instead, the court determined that the terms of the supervised release, which included the requirement that he stay away from minors, were suitable considering the crime.
What Is Supervised Released?
After someone convicted of a federal crime finishes his or her prison sentence, there is typically a preliminary period in which a defendant is not housed in a prison but is still subject to numerous prohibitions. During this time, a probation officer will ensure that a defendant complies with the terms of supervised release, which are set by a judge.
With sex crime offenders, the conditions of supervised release are often strict because judges view the charges as serious, and sex offenders have a tendency to re-offend.
United States v. Warren
In the recent 7th Circuit case United States v. Warren, the defendant pled guilty to transporting and possessing child pornography. The defendant admitted to managing a group online that was used to distribute illicit images among members. The defendant also encouraged the group members to provide new child pornography files to the group.
The defendant was sentenced to a prison term and supervised release. As his release date neared, the defendant’s probation officers requested that the judge modify and make more restrictive the supervised release terms. The requested terms sought to require the defendant to notify probation officers when he traveled out of state and to prohibit him from having contact with minors.
The trial court judge, over the defendant’s objections, added the requested supervised release terms. The 7th Circuit agreed with this decision and offered reasons in an opinion.
The defendant had argued that under the facts of his case, the conditions of supervised release were too restrictive. He argued that the no contact with minors provision was not justifiable given that he never had contact with minors in committing the crimes online.
The 7th Circuit rejected this argument, reasoning that there were facts in this case that supported the no contact provision. The court pointed to the defendant’s requests for group members to add to the online child pornography collection, noting that child pornography presents numerous harms to children. The defendant also encouraged the creation of new child pornography.
Contact a Milwaukee, WI, Sex Offenses Lawyer
If you are charged with a crime, it is important to keep in mind possible sentences as well as conditions of supervised release, which can place harsh restrictions on a defendant. Our attorneys remain informed of all changes and developments to criminal law. We also keep in mind the full extent of a client’s possible sentence from prison time to terms of probation.
These details are important considerations when agreeing to plea deals and developing trial strategy. By hiring an attorney at our firm, your constitutional rights and best interests will be protected. The experienced Milwaukee sensitive crimes attorneys at Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, LLP can be reached at 414-271-1440.
Source:
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D12-05/C:16-1492:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:1873021:S:0
