United States v. Jori Ferguson
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9431
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ferguson repeatedly violated supervised release; the district court relied on a lab report from a forensic examiner who did not testify; Ferguson objected to admission absent good cause for unavailability; no good cause was shown; district court admitted the report based on stationery/signature rather than testimony or reliability; the court sentenced Ferguson to 42 months; this appeal challenges Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) confrontation requirement and harmlessness analysis; this court reverses and remands for new revocation proceedings.
- Ferguson’s criminal-history context shows long periods of imprisonment and repeat drug-related violations, highlighting the high stakes of revocation proceedings.
- The March 16, 2013 marijuana seizure produced a lab report by Jennifer Clary that was admitted without chemist testimony; Officer McDonald testified but did not perform the analysis; the report lacked methodological details and chain-of-custody information.
- The government offered no explanation for the chemist’s unavailability, and the district court failed to balance confrontation rights against any good cause, relying instead on corroboration and stationery as reliability indicators.
- On appeal, the court reverses and remands for a proper Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) balancing analysis and to allow confrontation unless good cause for nonappearance is shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of the lab report without the chemist’s testimony violated Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C). | Ferguson | Government | Reversed; error without good cause requires reversal. |
| What standard of harmless error applies to this due process issue. | Ferguson | Government | Kotteakos standard (non-constitutional) applies; not harmless here. |
| Whether the error had a substantial influence on the sentence. | Ferguson | Government | Not harmless given serious drug-violations and reliance on the lab report. |
| Whether the error was constitutional (confrontation) or non-constitutional (Rule 32.1). | Ferguson | Government | Confrontation right implicated; error treated as substantial. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Doswell, 670 F.3d 526 (4th Cir. 2012) (balancing test under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) for confrontation in revocation)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process in revocation proceedings; confrontation right)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless error standard for constitutional errors)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harmless error standard for non-constitutional errors; substantial rights)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation as reliability-testing mechanism; right to cross-examine)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic testimony; reliability concerns; need for cross-examination)
- United States v. Jordan, 742 F.3d 276 (7th Cir. 2014) (balancing approach to hearsay in revocation)
- United States v. Doswell, 670 F.3d 526 (4th Cir. 2012) (reaffirming confrontation-balancing framework)