United States v. Keith Jordan, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1743

Keith D. Jordan was on supervised release and arrested in Texas for marijuana possession; probation petition alleged four violations including a Grade A possession-with-intent-to-distribute charge.
At the revocation hearing Jordan admitted three Grade C violations but disputed the Grade A charge.
The government relied primarily on Trooper Wilson’s police report; Wilson did not testify. The district court admitted the report and sustained an objection to questions about Wilson’s availability without explaining why.
The district court found Jordan violated supervised release (possession with intent) and sentenced him to 24 months, without making an explicit “interest of justice” finding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C).
On appeal Jordan argued the court failed to perform the Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) balancing (and separately raised a Due Process confrontation claim). The Seventh Circuit found the Rule was violated and that the error was not harmless, vacating the judgment and remanding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) requires an explicit balancing of defendant’s confrontation interest against government good cause before admitting hearsay at a revocation hearing	Jordan: Court must make the “interest of justice” finding and balance confrontation rights against government reasons before denying live testimony	Government: Rule does not compel that particularized balancing or findings; hearsay may be admissible without doing so	The court held Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) requires an explicit balancing; admitting the police report without it was error
Whether admission of the police report was harmless error (i.e., whether the hearsay was sufficiently reliable/corroborated)	Jordan: Report was untested and not independently corroborated; error was prejudicial	Government: Report was reliable and corroborated by admissions, indictment, officer testimony, and video; any error harmless	The court found the record insufficient to conclude the report was so reliable that the Rule violation was harmless and remanded for further proceedings

Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (statutory claim ordinarily decided before constitutional claim)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due process protections, including limited confrontation, in parole revocation hearings)
United States v. Doswell, 670 F.3d 526 (4th Cir.) (applying balancing test under Rule 32.1)
United States v. Lloyd, 566 F.3d 341 (3d Cir.) (same)
United States v. Williams, 443 F.3d 35 (2d Cir.) (same)
United States v. Rondeau, 430 F.3d 44 (1st Cir.) (same)
United States v. Martin, 382 F.3d 840 (8th Cir.) (same)
United States v. Stanfield, 360 F.3d 1346 (D.C. Cir.) (same)
Barnes v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 451 (5th Cir.) (same)
United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir.) (same)
United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110 (11th Cir.) (same)
United States v. Kelley, 446 F.3d 688 (7th Cir.) (hearsay admissible where reporting officer testified and physical evidence corroborated)
United States v. LeBlanc, 175 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.) (discussing Rule 32.1 and Morrissey)