Opinion ID: 2708522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosure of Special Conditions

Text: We briefly pause to express our concern that the parties were not privy to the conditions of supervised release suggested by the probation office prior to the hearing. “Although the probation officer who prepares the [PSR] also prepares a separate document entitled ‘Sentencing Recommendation,’ which includes recommended conditions of supervised release, the district court is authorized to conceal the recommendations from the defendant and his lawyer.” Bryant, 2014 WL 2612349, at  (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e)(3)). The Sentencing Recommendation in this case, which comprised the first set of supervised release condi- 6 No. 13-3373 tions announced by the district court, was designated as confidential under the Southern District of Indiana’s Local Criminal Rule 13.1(c) (“The sentencing recommendation provided to the court by the probation office will not be disclosed except to the court.”). When asked at oral argument, both counsel stated that they had not seen this document. We recognize that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e)(3) permits this confidentiality in certain circumstances, particularly to “allow probation officers the opportunity to provide a candid assessment of the defendant to the court and to protect the effectiveness of the probation officer in the supervisory context.” Bryant, 2014 WL 2612349, at  (quoting United States v. Peterson, 711 F.3d 770, 776 and n.2 (7th Cir. 2013)). However, the Rule requires that “[f]actual information in the probation officer’s recommendation must be disclosed to the defendant.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(B)). And, as a matter of policy, “not knowing the recommendation itself may make it difficult for the defendant to mount an effective challenge to it.” Id. at . Certainly, “[d]efendant and lawyer are charged with knowledge of the sentencing guidelines, which list the standard conditions along with a number of special ones,” but it is almost impossible “to prepare to respond to every possible condition of supervised release that the judge may impose without any advance notice, given that the judge is empowered to im- pose special conditions that are not listed in the guidelines or anywhere else for that matter.” Id. at . And it seems problematic to conclude that the defendant waives objections to special conditions if he does not properly confront conditions presented for the first time at the sentencing hearing. For this reason and others, we recommend that sentencing judges follow the best practices outlined in Siegel when No. 13-3373 7 imposing conditions of supervised release, particularly the suggestion that judges “[r]equire the probation service to communicate its recommendations for conditions of supervised release to defense counsel at least two weeks before the sentencing hearing.” Siegel, 2014 WL 2210762, at .