United States v. Domenech, Criminal No. 2014-0183

William Domenech pleaded guilty in 2014 to conspiracy to distribute cocaine on a U.S.-registered aircraft and received time served plus a 3-year term of supervised release.
On Sept. 14, 2016, Domenech’s wife, Amparo Pérez, made contemporaneous statements (including a 911 call and a sworn police statement) alleging Domenech poured boiling water on her while she slept; photos showed extensive burns.
Pérez later gave two recanting statements months afterward, claiming the injuries were accidental; she invoked the Fifth Amendment at the revocation hearing and was not cross-examined.
The Probation Office alleged Domenech also left the Middle District of Florida without permission; Domenech conceded that violation but contested the aggravated battery allegation.
Magistrate Judge Harvey found Domenech committed aggravated battery and recommended revocation with at least 30 months incarceration; the district court adopted the R&R, revoked supervised release, and imposed 30 months imprisonment followed by 24 months supervised release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Domenech committed aggravated battery	Pérez’s contemporaneous statements (911, sworn police statement) plus physical injuries and scene photos corroborate an assault; defendant fled and showed consciousness of guilt	Initial statements unreliable given later recantations; insufficient proof beyond conflicting hearsay	Court held evidence (timing, consistency of initial statements, physical burn pattern, flight) established battery by a preponderance of the evidence
Prejudice from Pérez’s unavailability for cross-examination	Government had good cause not to present Pérez (invocation of Fifth); her initial statements were reliable and corroborated, so no due-process prejudice	Government should have granted immunity or otherwise produced Pérez; inability to cross-examine prejudiced Domenech’s defense	Court held no prejudice: good cause existed and record contained sufficient reliable nonhearsay/hearsay evidence to satisfy due process

Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602 (preponderance of the evidence standard explained)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due process standards for revocation proceedings)
Ash v. Reilly, 431 F.3d 826 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (scope of confrontation and prejudice inquiry in revocation hearings)
United States v. Stanfield, 360 F.3d 1346 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (balancing confrontation rights against government’s reasons for not presenting witnesses)
Crawford v. Jackson, 323 F.3d 123 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (reliability considerations for out-of-court statements)
United States v. Carthen, 681 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2012) (rules of evidence and confrontation in revocation contexts)