United States v. Lawrence Antelope, United States of America v. Lawrence Antelope

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that self-incrimination privilege was implicated by defendant’s required participation in sexual abuse treatment program after conviction
• holding that the defendant’s risk of incrimination was realistic because “[b]ased on the nature of this requirement and Antelope’s steadfast refusal to comply, it seems only fair to infer that his sexual [history] would, in fact, reveal past sex crimes”
• stating that deterrence and public protection goals justify the imposition of broad restrictions on Internet usage when Internet usage constitutes a “step on a path towards more serious transgressions”
• explaining that under McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 53 (2002) (O’Connor, J., concurring
• holding 30 Denning v. Board of Parole that the revocation of probation and supervised release vio- lated the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination and that such “self-protective silence” could not be punished
• holding 30 Denning v. Board of Parole that the revocation of probation and supervised release vio- lated the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination and that such “self-protective silence” could not be punished

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).