United States v. Cloist Jimison, Jr., 825 F.3d 260

Cloist Jimison, Jr. was on supervised release after a federal conviction and admitted to ten Grade C violations but denied three Grade A violations alleging illegal/counterfeit drug sales.
The Government relied solely on Special Agent Dodder’s testimony recounting a confidential informant’s out-of-court statements, an alleged photo-lineup identification, and an unproduced video of three controlled buys.
Dodder did not personally witness the buys, could not recall many details, had not viewed the video recently, and the video was not introduced at the hearing or provided to Jimison.
Jimison objected that admitting the informant’s statements through Dodder violated his confrontation right; the district court did not make an explicit “good cause” finding but found the Grade A violations proven and revoked supervised release, imposing a mandatory 24-month sentence.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the confrontation claim de novo (harmless-error analysis) and found the record lacked an explicit or implicit good-cause justification for denying confrontation; the court vacated the revocation and remanded for a new hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting hearsay identification/testimony of a confidential informant through an officer without presenting the informant violated the supervisee’s confrontation right at a revocation hearing	Jimison: Due Process confrontation right was violated; he had a strong interest in cross-examining the informant whose identification was central	Government: Officer’s testimony and alleged recording suffice; practical concerns often justify not calling informants	The court held the denial violated due process: no explicit good-cause finding and the hearsay lacked sufficient indicia of reliability, so revocation vacated
Whether the district court’s failure to state good cause was harmless error given the record	Jimison: Failure was prejudicial because evidence identifying him rested on hearsay and unproduced video	Government: Implicit findings or other record evidence could supply good cause; practical concerns about informant safety/usefulness	The court found no implicit good cause in the record—balancing favored Jimison given weak reliability and centrality of the informant’s ID

United States v. Minnitt, 617 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2010) (establishes good-cause balancing for confrontation at revocation hearings)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due process protections for parole revocation, flexible procedural rights)
United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 1995) (requires good-cause finding when refusing confrontation in revocation proceedings)
United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 1995) (reliability of hearsay central to good-cause inquiry; lab reports often reliable)
United States v. Kindred, 918 F.2d 485 (5th Cir. 1990) (distinguishes scientific evidence from credibility-driven hearsay in revocation contexts)
Owens v. State of Oklahoma, 484 U.S. 554 (1988) (out-of-court identifications treated as hearsay implicating confrontation concerns)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability is the linchpin in admissibility of identification testimony)
Farrish v. Mississippi State Parole Bd., 836 F.2d 969 (5th Cir. 1988) (cautions against admitting officer-recounted eyewitness testimony without confrontation)