United States v. Doswell
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4316
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Doswell, convicted in 1994 of robbery, began supervised release on May 11, 2009.
- Original Notice (Aug 26, 2010) alleged six violations of supervised release conditions by Doswell.
- Supplemental Notice (Nov 15, 2010) added an additional heroin-related violation based on October 26, 2010 events.
- Revocation hearing held January 11, 2011; Doswell admitted marijuana violation but disputed its grade; government relied on heroin violation evidence.
- District court admitted a drug analysis report tying Doswell to heroin and sentenced him to 24 months.
- Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding district court violated Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) by improper hearsay admission and balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of hearsay under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C). | Doswell argued hearsay evidence was improperly admitted without cross-examination. | Doswell contended the court failed to balance interests before admitting the drug analysis report. | Abused discretion; required balancing under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) and remand. |
| Reliability and harmlessness of the heroin evidence. | Proponent maintains evidence should be enough for revocation even if unreliable. | Defense argued the evidence was unreliable and not properly tested due to absence of chemist testimony. | Not harmless; remand for proper Rule 32.1 balancing and consideration of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses in revocation hearings)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (confrontation rights in revocation proceedings)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (reliability concerns of drug analysis reports)
- United States v. Delfino, 510 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2007) (district courts must consider reliability when admitting evidence)
- Duty v. East Coast Tender Service, Inc., 660 F.2d 933 (4th Cir. 1981) (preserves argument when objection is specific)
- United States v. Williams, 443 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2006) (balancing test for admissibility of hearsay at revocation hearings)
- United States v. Lloyd, 566 F.3d 341 (3d Cir. 2009) (adoption of balancing approach to Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C))
- United States v. Martin, 382 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 2004) (balancing-reliability framework for confrontation rights)
- United States v. Taveras, 380 F.3d 532 (1st Cir. 2004) (reliability and confrontation considerations in hearsay admissibility)
- Curtis v. Chester, 626 F.3d 540 (10th Cir. 2010) (reliability as a critical factor in confrontation-right analysis)