United States v. Jones, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6211

Background

Cameron Jones was on supervised release after a 2007 federal drug conviction; probation petitioned to revoke after a September 27, 2014 gang-related murder of Miles.
Government’s sole witness at the revocation hearing was homicide Inspector Benavides, who relayed out-of-court statements by eyewitness Ms. Palmore and by Trenton Nguyen and described investigative and physical-scene evidence.
Ms. Palmore told Benavides she saw Jones shoot into the car; she initially misidentified a photo in a lineup but later (to Benavides) insisted Jones was the shooter; she refused to testify at state prosecution and did not appear at the revocation hearing (was not subpoenaed).
The district court found, by a preponderance, that Jones violated two conditions (committing a crime and firearm possession) and revoked supervised release, relying heavily on Benavides’s hearsay recounting of Ms. Palmore’s statements.
Jones moved to strike the hearsay; the district court denied the motion as to Benavides’s testimony, finding it reliable and probative; Jones appealed arguing Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) requires a balancing test and the court failed to apply it.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) requires a balancing test before admitting hearsay at a revocation hearing	Jones: Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) and its advisory notes require balancing defendant’s confrontation interest against government’s good cause before admitting hearsay	Govt: District court applied appropriate inquiry (reliability/gravity) and therefore satisfied Rule 32.1	Court: Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) requires applying the advisory-note balancing test (confrontation interest vs. government good cause)
Whether the district court actually applied the Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) balancing test	Jones: Court did not adequately address the releasee’s confrontation interest or the government’s justification for not producing the witness	Govt: Court quoted the rule/notes and weighed reliability and gravity, so balancing was performed	Court: District court abused its discretion by failing to apply the required balancing test on the record
Whether the failure to apply the balancing test was harmless error	Jones: Error affected substantial rights because Benavides was sole witness and the court gave his hearsay ‘‘decisive effect’’; Jones had strong cross-examination interests	Govt: Any error was harmless because other corroborating evidence supported revocation and witness was likely unavailable due to fear/retaliation	Court: Error reversible — grave doubt remains whether testimony would have been admitted under balancing test; government cannot show harmlessness

Key Cases Cited

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation requires certain due process protections including right to confront adverse witnesses unless good cause found)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (confrontation right at revocation hearings is flexible; substitutes for live testimony may be appropriate)
Curtis v. Chester, 626 F.3d 540 (10th Cir. 2010) (discussing reliability test for hearsay at revocation and acknowledging post‑2002 Rule 32.1 changes)
Kell v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 26 F.3d 1016 (10th Cir. 1994) (pre‑2002 adoption of a reliability test for hearsay at revocation hearings)
United States v. Chin, 224 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2000) (adopting balancing test for confrontation in revocation contexts)
United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 1999) (adopting balancing approach to confrontation at revocation)
United States v. Jordan, 742 F.3d 276 (7th Cir. 2014) (applying balancing test post‑Rule 32.1 amendment)
United States v. Doswell, 670 F.3d 526 (4th Cir. 2012) (applying balancing test under Rule 32.1)
United States v. LeCompte, 800 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2015) (standard: revocation decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional error reversible unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)