Hearsay Statements Not Automatically Admissible In Supervised Release Revocation Proceedings

Tremale Henry’ supervised release was revoked in part based on hearsay statements related to an alleged assault. Hearsay is an out of court statement that is offered for the truth of the matter asserted.Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C) gives defendants in revocation proceedings the right to “question any adverse witness, unless the judge determines that the interest of justice does not require the witness to appear.” This rule affords defendants a “qualified confrontation interest,” the Tenth Circuit held. Thus, when the Government seeks to rely hearsay statements at a revocation hearing and where the witness is not present, the court must conduct a balancing test “aimed at weighing the defendant's interests in confronting a witness against the government's interests in foregoing the witness's appearance.” United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091, 1097–98 (10th Cir. 2016).

The lower court in Henry’s case failed to conduct this balancing test. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded the matter to district court for further proceedings. See: United States v. Henry, No. 15-6181 (10th Cir. 2017). Hearsay Statements | Alleged Assult | Supervised Release

About Brandon Sample

Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon’s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Recommended for you

MVRA Restitution And Loss Amount Inadequate, Eleventh Circuit Holds

United States v. Mitchell J. Stein : Mitchell Stein, a former attorney, challenged the district court’s loss and MVRA restitution determination in a mail, wire, and securities fraud prosecution arguing that the Government had failed to demonstrate both factual and legal causation for the loss amount.Using the same standard for Stein’s loss and restitution challenge,…

Read More about MVRA Restitution And Loss Amount Inadequate, Eleventh Circuit Holds

Career Offender Enhancement Cannot Be Based On Texas Possession With Intent To Distribute Conviction

United States v. Tanksley – Career Offender Enhancement  : Dantana Tanksley was previously convicted in Texas under Section 481.112(a) of the Texas controlled substances act of possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He was later enhanced as a career offender under federal sentencing guidelines. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, an individual can be…

Read More about Career Offender Enhancement Cannot Be Based On Texas Possession With Intent To Distribute Conviction

Attorney Abandonment Claim Remanded For A Hearing

Mark Christeson filed a motion to re-open his habeas proceedings under Rule 60(b) arguing that his attorney’s failure to timely submit his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (used by state prisoners but similar to a 2255) constituted attorney abandonment. The abandonment issue was key to resolving whether “extraordinary circumstances” existed to warrant granting Rule 60…

Read More about Attorney Abandonment Claim Remanded For A Hearing