Legal Opinion

United States v. Andrew Hulen

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 10, 2018No. 16-30160PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:

The issue in this case is whether admissions made during mandatory sex-offender treatment may be used against a defendant to revoke supervised release. Answering that question requires us to consider whether a proceeding to revoke supervised release is a “criminal case” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

While on supervised release, Andrew Hulen violated various conditions of his release. He admitted those violations during sex-offender treatment, in which he was required to participate as a condition of his release. Based on…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. United States Parole Commission v. GeraghtySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Minnesota v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Chavez v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  5. Middendorf v. HenrySupreme Court of the United States · 1976

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. United States v. Shelton KetterCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2018
  2. Daniel Chavez v. David RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
  3. United States v. Roberto YepezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
  4. United States v. Alexander OrihoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
  5. United States v. Daniel KaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2020

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API