Roman v. DiGuglielmo
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6707
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Roman was convicted in 1977 of two counts of third-degree murder and later released on parole in 1992.
- In 2001, while on parole for the homicide, he was convicted of indecent assault and corruption of a minor; the sentencing recommended sex offender treatment.
- The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole later ordered that, to participate in treatment, Roman admit guilt; he refused to admission to preserve his pending state appeal.
- The Board denied Roman parole in 2003 and again in 2004, citing his failure to complete the sex offender treatment and other parole history factors.
- Roman filed a pro se habeas petition in 2005 challenging the Board’s conditions as a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination violation; the district court denied the petition.
- The Third Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on exhaustion and Fifth Amendment issues, and ultimately affirmed the district court’s denial on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion bars review or is futile here | Roman argues exhaustion should be excused as futile in light of state-law limits | The State contends DeFoy controls and exhaustion is required | Exhaustion not reached on the merits; court notes possible shift in law but affirms on merits |
| Whether the Board's threat to parole based on not admitting guilt violates the Fifth Amendment | Roman says admission is compelled self-incrimination | State says no compulsion; consequences not coercive enough | Fifth Amendment claim fails; no compulsion under McKune v. Lile; denial of parole not unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (U.S. 2002) (set forth compulsion test in prison rehabilitation context)
- DeFoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439 (3d Cir. 2005) (exhaustion not required for parole-denial claims in some contexts; outlines futility standard)
- Ohio v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (U.S. 1998) (discusses limits of Fifth Amendment in clemency-like contexts)
- Ainsworth v. Stanley, 317 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (pre-McKune approach; balancing test for burden on rights in rehab programs)
- United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasizes state purpose and beyond-prison-penalty considerations)
- Searcy v. Simmons, 299 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2002) (factors for Fifth Amendment challenges in prison context)