United States v. Deida
681 F. App'x 18
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Jorge Deida was on supervised release after a federal controlled-substances sentence; probation petitions alleged domestic assaults on Jan 12, 2016 and March 3, 2016.
- The government withdrew the March 3 allegation before the revocation hearing after a state-court not-guilty verdict; Jan 12 allegation remained and Deida was never criminally charged for that date.
- Two witnesses testified at the revocation hearing: the alleged victim, Jennifer Vanslette, and her family counselor, Rose Brockstedt.
- Vanslette testified about being struck on Jan 12 and about a March 3 choking/threat incident; she also said she called Brockstedt the next day to cancel counseling and described injuries.
- Brockstedt corroborated receiving Vanslette’s Jan 13 call and seeing bruising two weeks later; she also described a March 3 “help” text and a call with Deida audible in the background.
- The district court found, by a preponderance, that Deida committed simple domestic assault on Jan 12, revoked supervised release, and imposed 14 months’ custody plus 22 months’ supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Jan 13 telephone statements | Gov argued statements were admissible and reliable for revocation proceedings | Deida argued out-of-court statements were unreliable hearsay and should be excluded | Court held statements admissible: declarant testified, adopted the statements, was cross-examined, and corroboration supported reliability |
| Admissibility of testimony about March 3 incident | Gov introduced to show relationship context and corroboration; initially alleged as a violation but later dropped | Deida argued testimony was improper prior-bad-acts evidence (Rule 404(b)) and prejudicial given state acquittal | Court found any error harmless because Jan 12 alone supported revocation; also noted such evidence can be admissible to show motive/intent and relationship in domestic-violence context |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rondeau, 430 F.3d 44 (1st Cir.) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings at revocation hearings)
- United States v. Taveras, 380 F.3d 532 (1st Cir.) (evidentiary review and hearsay in revocation proceedings)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (revocation proceedings may consider evidence not admissible in criminal trials)
- United States v. Portalla, 985 F.2d 621 (1st Cir.) (need for reliability when admitting non-FRE evidence)
- United States v. Marino, 833 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (hearsay often permitted in revocation hearings)
- Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (U.S. 1990) (firmly rooted hearsay exceptions and reliability concerns)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (importance of cross-examination for credibility)
- United States v. Martin, 382 F.3d 840 (8th Cir.) (corroboration by observed injuries supports reliability)
- United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502 (4th Cir.) (admission of prior domestic acts to show motive and relationship)
- Albrecht v. Horn, 485 F.3d 103 (3d Cir.) (past domestic abuse evidence admissible to show motive)