Whether the Ninth Circuit's failure to analyze Petitioner's argument under the classic penalty situation addressed by this Court in Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 (1984), and Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) violates the Self Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Andrew Hulen was required to complete sexual offender treatment as a condition of his supervised release. Petitioner was forthright with his treatment provider about actions he took that were inconsistent with his treatment regimen. His treatment provider had Petitioner write down his admissions. Those admissions were forwarded to Petitioner’s probation officer. As a result of being open with his treatment provider about his prohibited behaviors, Petitioner was terminated from the treatment program. His supervised release was revoked as a result. Petitioner faced a Hobson’s “choice”: to incriminate himself during treatment or to say nothing and forestall treatment. Either would lead inextricably to revocation. Against this background, the following question is presented: Whether the Ninth Circuit’s failure to analyze Petitioner’s argument under the classic penalty situation addressed by this Court in Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 (1984), and Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) violates the Self Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ii