United States v. Washington
904 F.3d 204
2d Cir.2018Background
- Washington was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender and sentenced to five years of supervised release; the PSR recommended special conditions including sex-offender treatment and "submission to polygraph testing."
- At the sentencing hearing the district court imposed the sex-offender-treatment condition in abbreviated form and did not orally mention polygraph testing.
- The written judgment, entered after sentencing, restated the treatment condition using the fuller PSR language and explicitly required "submission to polygraph testing."
- Washington had reviewed the PSR before sentencing but did not object at the hearing to the PSR’s recommended conditions; he appealed after the written judgment added the polygraph requirement.
- The Second Circuit considered whether the written judgment impermissibly modified the spoken sentence by adding the polygraph requirement and whether the spoken or written sentence controls.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the written judgment may add a polygraph requirement omitted from the oral sentence | The Government (or district court) effectively argues the written judgment can clarify and incorporate PSR-recommended conditions, including polygraph testing | Washington argues the polygraph requirement was not pronounced in his presence and thus the written judgment improperly added a burdensome condition without notice | The court held the written inclusion of "submission to polygraph testing" impermissibly modified the spoken sentence and must be removed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacques, 321 F.3d 255 (2d Cir.) (review of discrepancies between spoken and written sentence is a legal question)
- United States v. Sofsky, 287 F.3d 122 (2d Cir.) (issues of sentencing terms may be reviewed de novo where defendant lacked notice)
- United States v. Truscello, 168 F.3d 61 (2d Cir.) (written judgment may clarify spoken sentence but cannot substantively alter it)
- United States v. Rosario, 386 F.3d 166 (2d Cir.) (spoken sentence generally controls; narrow exceptions for mandatory/standard guideline conditions or basic administrative requirements)