United States v. Jeffrey Hilger
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17744
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hilger, on supervised release after a child pornography conviction, admitted to six prohibited contacts with minors.
- District court held a revocation hearing and relied on Hilger’s detailed confession corroborated by a polygraph.
- Evidence included a polygraph result, detailed admissions, testimony from a probation officer, and expert testimony about suggestibility.
- Hilger argued Opper v. United States requires corroboration and non-confession evidence, which he contends was lacking.
- Court declined to apply the Opper corpus delicti rule to supervised-release revocation, treating revocation as distinct from criminal prosecution.
- District court found a violation by a preponderance of the evidence and imposed a 24-month term of imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Opper apply to supervised-release revocation? | Hilger argues Opper's corroboration requirement governs revocation. | Hilger contends revocation differs from criminal prosecution; Opper not required. | Opper does not apply to revocation. |
| What is the evidentiary burden in revocation proceedings? | Corroboration and independent evidence are required for reliability. | Preponderance of the evidence suffices; flexible procedure allowed. | Preponderance standard applies; flexible evidence admissible. |
| Was the district court’s revocation supported by substantial evidence? | Hilger’s confession, corroborating polygraph, and testimony establish violations. | Evidence relied on was insufficient or unreliable. | District court did not abuse its discretion; revocation affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (Supreme Court-1954) (corpus delicti rule in criminal trials; corroboration required for confessions)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court-1972) (revocation not criminal prosecution; due process in parole revocation)
- United States v. Brennick, 337 F.3d 107 (1st Cir.-2003) (revocation differs from prosecution; evidence may be admitted flexibly)
- United States v. Turner, 312 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir.-2002) (burden of proof for supervised release violations; preponderance standard)
- United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543 (9th Cir.-2008) (revocation based on confessions; cross-examination and reliability considerations)