United States v. Henry, 852 F.3d 1204

Tremale Henry, on supervised release after federal drug sentence, was arrested for assaults outside an Oklahoma City nightclub and faced a revocation hearing.
District court found Henry responsible for two separate assaults with a dangerous weapon (one attempted lunge earlier in the evening; one later stabbing) and a separate violation for lying to his probation officer.
For the first assault the court relied on live testimony from Candace Ramsey, a poor-quality surveillance video, and a probation officer’s recounting of Ramsey’s prior statement that she had seen a knife. Ramsey testified live and was cross-examined.
For the second assault the court relied on out-of-court statements by the victim and the victim’s girlfriend relayed through a detective and the probation officer; none of those declarants testified live or were cross-examined.
Henry argued the court impermissibly relied on hearsay; the government defended the use of hearsay and invoked the Rule 32.1 "interest of justice" language. The Tenth Circuit affirmed as to the first assault but found error as to the second and remanded for resentencing or further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether hearsay from a witness who appears live (Ramsey) violates Rule 32.1 or Jones	Henry: district court impermissibly relied on Ramsey’s out-of-court statement relayed by probation officer	Government: hearsay permissible in revocation; Ramsey testified live so Henry could confront her	Court: No error — Rule 32.1 and Jones do not require extra balancing when the declarant appears and is subject to cross-examination
Whether hearsay from absent witnesses (victim and girlfriend) required a Jones balancing test before admission	Henry: district court erred by admitting out-of-court statements without applying Jones balancing test under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C)	Government: district court’s invocation of the “interest of justice” suffices; revocation rules allow flexibility	Court: Error — Jones applies and district court failed to perform the required balancing for absent-witness hearsay
Whether the Jones error was harmless given a valid finding as to the first assault	Henry: error affected sentencing and relief is required	Government: harmless because single valid violation sufficed to revoke and first-assault finding was independent	Court: Not harmless — second violation may have influenced the sentence; record does not show the court would have imposed same sentence absent the second violation; remand required

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (revocation proceedings require only minimal due process and may consider evidence inadmissible in criminal trials)
Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) (Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to probation/supervised release revocation)
United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2016) (requires balancing test under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) before admitting hearsay from absent adverse witnesses)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of a hearsay statement when declarant is present to be cross-examined)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new constitutional rules apply retroactively to cases on direct review)