Commonwealth v. Jarrett, 491 Mass. 437

In 2018 Jarrett pleaded guilty to two counts of attempting to derive support from a prostitute and received a 2½-year sentence with 18 months suspended on conditions including obeying the law.
On June 17, 2019, Office r Shana Rivera observed Gregory Gomes (a known drug user), Sean McCarthy, and a tall, thin Black man in a red shirt with hair in a man bun enter and quickly leave a mall; Rivera followed and later observed what she inferred was a drug transaction between Gomes and McCarthy.
Officers stopped McCarthy and found crack cocaine; McCarthy told officers he had received the drugs from Gomes, who in turn said he got them from a tall Black man matching the earlier description.
Rivera located and arrested Jarrett after he rushed into a gym; officers seized a digital scale and $292 from him. Rivera made an in-court identification of Jarrett at the probation hearing; there was no prior out-of-court identification by McCarthy identifying Jarrett.
The Commonwealth charged a probation violation for committing a new drug offense; at the November 22, 2019 probation revocation hearing the judge heard Rivera’s testimony and exhibits and found an "extremely strong" circumstantial case that Jarrett violated probation.
The judge revoked Jarrett’s probation and ordered him to serve the remaining six months; Jarrett appealed arguing (among other things) that Crayton requires exclusion of Rivera’s in-court identification absent a prior nonsuggestive out-of-court ID.

Issue	Jarrett's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether Crayton’s rule barring in‑court identifications absent a prior out‑of‑court identification applies to probation‑violation hearings	Crayton should be extended to probation hearings because in‑court showups are inherently suggestive and probationers have a liberty interest	Probation hearings are distinct from criminal trials; Crayton need not apply	Court refused to extend Crayton to probation hearings; Crayton’s "good reason" requirement does not apply
Whether Rivera’s in‑court identification was fundamentally unfair or unreliable without a prior nonsuggestive out‑of‑court ID	The in‑court ID was inherently unreliable and should be excluded or given little weight	The judge, as factfinder, may assess reliability and consider the ID alongside circumstantial evidence	Court held the in‑court ID was sufficiently reliable when considered with other evidence; admission did not violate due process
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove, by a preponderance, that Jarrett committed a new crime in violation of probation	The circumstantial evidence and the suggestive ID were insufficient to meet the preponderance standard	Rivera’s direct observations plus the in‑court ID and seized scale/cash sufficed	Court affirmed: the judge could find by a preponderance that Jarrett participated in drug distribution

Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (2014) (limits in‑court showup identifications at criminal trials absent "good reason")
Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108 (1990) (probation violation hearings afford narrower, flexible due process protections than trials)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (minimum procedural safeguards required at parole/probation revocation proceedings)
Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 446 Mass. 61 (2006) (absence of a nonsuggestive out‑of‑court ID is not necessarily fatal if evidence is otherwise reliable)
Commonwealth v. Bukin, 467 Mass. 516 (2014) (reliable hearsay may satisfy due process at probation hearings)
Commonwealth v. Eldred, 480 Mass. 90 (2018) (describes the two‑part inquiry for revocation and standard of review)