Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court consolidated two cases concerning whether extending inmates' incarceration as a disciplinary sanction for refusing to admit or discuss their convicted sex offenses in treatment violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court held that extending incarceration constituted compulsion and overruled its prior contrary precedent. It affirmed relief for Johnson and reversed the decision denying relief to Henderson, whose trial testimony denying the offense created a risk of perjury prosecution if he admitted it in treatment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether extending an inmate's incarceration for refusing to admit the offense in a sex offender treatment program constitutes compulsion under the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- Whether a convicted individual may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege while a direct appeal remains pending or the time for direct appeal has not expired.
- Whether the privilege survives exhaustion of direct appeal when a compelled admission could expose the inmate to prosecution for perjury based on contrary sworn trial testimony.
- Whether State ex rel. Morrow v. LaFleur remained good law after McKune v. Lile and Carrillo v. Fabian.
Holdings
- In the context of Minnesota's sentencing scheme, extending an inmate's incarceration as a disciplinary sanction for refusing to admit sexual offenses in sex offender treatment constitutes compulsion for purposes of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- A convicted individual may claim the privilege against self-incrimination while a direct appeal is pending or while the time for taking a direct appeal has not expired.
- The Fifth Amendment privilege survives exhaustion of direct appeal at least where a compelled admission would conflict with prior sworn trial testimony and create a real and appreciable risk of prosecution for perjury.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, based on the narrowest grounds doctrine, McKune's teaching is that in the prison setting, a consequence that meets the Sandin "atypical and significant hardship" test is a consequence that constitutes compulsion for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.” (at 305)
“We agree, and now hold that a convicted individual can claim the privilege against self-incrimination as long as a direct appeal of that conviction is pending, or as long as the time for direct appeal of that conviction has not expired.” (at 310)
“Because extension of incarceration constitutes compulsion and because there was a real and appreciable risk that any admissions made by Henderson would be incriminating in a potential perjury prosecution, we hold that the Commissioner violated Henderson's privilege against self-incrimination by extending his incarceration by 45 days for refusal to admit his crime in sex offender treatment.” (at 312)
Factual background
Johnson and Henderson were Minnesota prisoners ordered to participate in a prison-based sex offender treatment program requiring admission and discussion of their crimes of conviction. Each refused to participate and received a 45-day extension of incarceration as a disciplinary sanction. Johnson refused while his direct appeal was pending; Henderson's direct appeal had ended, but he had testified at trial that he had no sexual contact with the victim, creating a potential conflict between any treatment admission and his sworn testimony.
Procedural history
In Johnson's case, the district court denied habeas relief, the court of appeals reversed and remanded for recalculation of his supervised-release date, and the Supreme Court affirmed. In Henderson's case, the district court denied habeas relief, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court reversed.
Remand instructions
As to Johnson, affirm the court of appeals' reversal and remand for recalculation of his supervised-release date. As to Henderson, reverse the court of appeals' decision; the 45-day extension of incarceration violated his Fifth Amendment privilege.