United States v. Franklin, 51 F.4th 391

Franklin was originally convicted in 2007 of cocaine distribution and being a felon in possession; resentenced after the First Step Act and began a 12‑year term of supervised release in 2019.
On March 17, 2021, a probation officer visited Franklin’s home; his girlfriend, Nicola Clark, appeared fearful and later called 911 accusing Franklin of drug dealing, possession of two guns (one in a black bag), and that he had shoved her.
Police arrived, found Franklin outside his car, and a trained dog alerted near the front porch; officers recovered two loaded semiautomatic pistols in black leather pouches on the porch.
Clark made statements to the 911 dispatcher, police officer Donovan, and probation officer Lightowler describing the guns and a prior frying‑pan assault; Clark did not testify at the federal revocation hearing.
The government presented Clark’s out‑of‑court statements through Lightowler and Donovan; the district court found the statements reliable, revoked Franklin’s supervised release, and imposed a three‑year prison term.
On appeal Franklin argued (1) the hearsay statements were unreliable and (2) the district court failed to perform/record the Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) balancing regarding Clark’s availability and his limited confrontation right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clark’s out‑of‑court statements were admissible/reliable at revocation	United States: statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability (consistent descriptions, excited 911 call, independent corroboration — guns found in black pouches near Franklin)	Franklin: statements unreliable — inconsistent accounts, motive (jealousy), grand jury recantation, lack of injury evidence for assault	Court: No abuse of discretion; sufficient indicia of reliability and corroboration supported admission and findings
Whether the court erred by not explicitly balancing witness availability under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C)	United States: district court implicitly performed the balancing; independent corroboration and victim‑safety concerns supported excusing live testimony	Franklin: district court failed to state findings about availability / interest of justice; thus violated Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C)	Court: Franklin forfeited the availability challenge by not timely objecting; even plain‑error review fails — no clear error and implicit balancing was adequate

United States v. Fontanez, 845 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 2017) (revocation hearings provide only limited Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; hearsay admissible if reliable)
United States v. Portalla, 985 F.2d 621 (1st Cir. 1993) (hearsay may be admitted at revocation so long as it is reliable)
United States v. Mulero‑Díaz, 812 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2016) (Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) requires balancing confrontation right against reasons for denying live testimony)
United States v. Marino, 833 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016) (discussing indicia of reliability for hearsay in revocation proceedings)
United States v. Rondeau, 430 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2005) (corroboration and consistency as factors supporting reliability)
United States v. Estes, 985 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2021) (911 calls may qualify as excited‑utterance hearsay exception)
United States v. Colón‑Maldonado, 953 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020) (distinguishing preliminary and final revocation hearing confrontation rights)
United States v. Bueno‑Beltrán, 857 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2017) (standards for admitting hearsay under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C)")