United States v. Diaz, 986 F.3d 202

Pre‑dawn June 16, 2018: Raymond Melo was violently robbed and stabbed in a Bronx housing complex; a 911 caller and a sergeant at the scene corroborated a violent encounter.
Melo, hospitalized, described his attacker as having an M‑shaped/neck tattoo and identified a mugshot of Robert Diaz in a hospital show‑up.
Three months later Melo, to a federal agent, again identified Diaz from a six‑photo array but said he would lie on the stand if required.
At the supervised‑release revocation hearing Melo recanted much of his prior out‑of‑court statements; nonetheless officers who had spoken to Melo testified about his prior identifications and Ashley (Melo’s girlfriend) provided hearsay to investigators that was introduced through officers.
The district court admitted the out‑of‑court identifications and hearsay, found a violation by a preponderance, revoked supervised release, and sentenced Diaz principally to 24 months.
On appeal Diaz challenged (1) due‑process exclusion of unduly suggestive identifications, and (2) admission of hearsay without a Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) good‑cause finding.

Issue	Diaz's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Due‑process challenge to out‑of‑court identifications	Both the hospital show‑up and photo array were unduly suggestive and produced unreliable IDs that must be excluded	The procedures were suggestive but the identifications were independently reliable under the Biggers factors	Admissible: although suggestive, identifications were reliable; district court did not clearly err
Admission of Melo’s out‑of‑court statements without a Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) good‑cause finding	The court should have performed the Williams balancing test before relying on Melo’s hearsay	Rule 32.1’s good‑cause balancing is unnecessary where the declarant (Melo) testified and was available for cross‑examination; hearsay may be considered if reliable/corroborated	No error: no good‑cause finding required when declarant testified; Melo’s hearsay was corroborated and reliable
Admission of Ashley’s hearsay through officers without a good‑cause finding	Ashley’s statements were admitted in violation of Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) because she did not testify and no good‑cause finding was made	Government suggested Ashley merely relayed Melo’s statements, but produced no evidence; in any event her statements were cumulative	Error to admit Ashley’s hearsay without good cause, but harmless given overwhelming corroborating evidence

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (sets five‑factor test for reliability of eyewitness identifications)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (reliability is the linchpin for admissibility of identification testimony)
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (criticizes single‑photo show‑ups as suggestive)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (revocation hearings are not full criminal trials; relaxed evidentiary standards)
United States v. Williams, 443 F.3d 35 (requires balancing good‑cause before admitting hearsay when declarant not produced)
United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369 (discusses due‑process limits on suggestive identifications)