United States v. Leonard Smith, 718 F.3d 768

Smith pleaded guilty (2006) to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; sentenced to 31 months and 4 years of supervised release.
In Feb 2012 Smith was criminally charged in Minnesota with third-degree criminal sexual conduct based on an alleged sexual relationship (summer 2011) with N.E., then 13–14 years old; the state charge was later dismissed without prejudice after N.E. failed to appear.
Probation officer petitioned to revoke Smith’s supervised release, alleging he violated conditions by committing the state sexual-offense and other release conditions.
At the revocation hearing N.E. did not testify. The court heard testimony from a child-protection case manager (Sater), a forensic interviewer (Bosch, who conducted a videotaped interview in which N.E. admitted the sexual relationship), a sheriff’s investigator (Blaine) who documented Smith’s attempts to prevent N.E. from testifying, and Smith’s probation officer.
Smith objected that admitting N.E.’s out-of-court statements violated his Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) right to confront adverse witnesses and that he lacked prehearing written notice of an alleged witness-tampering violation; the district court admitted the statements, found violations, revoked supervised release, and sentenced Smith to 31 months.

Issue	Smith's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether admitting N.E.’s out-of-court statements violated Smith’s confrontation rights under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) and due process	Court improperly relied on hearsay; Smith was entitled to cross-examine N.E.	N.E. was a juvenile at risk of disruption/ retraumatization and had been pressured to not appear; other evidence was reliable and confrontation not required	Admission was not an abuse of discretion; good cause for nonappearance and the substitute evidence was reliable
Whether court erred by finding witness tampering without prehearing written notice under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(A)	Court alternatively found Smith committed witness tampering and he lacked required written notice	Court’s comment about interfering with a witness was explanatory, not a formal alternative finding	No violation of Rule 32.1(b)(2)(A); court did not formally base revocation on tampering

United States v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review and confrontation analysis in supervised-release revocation hearings)
United States v. Martin, 382 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 2004) (good-cause analysis for admitting out-of-court statements when witness refuses to testify)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due process minimum requirements for parole revocation, including confrontation absent good cause)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (extension of Morrissey due-process protections to probation revocation)
United States v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1986) (factors for balancing probationer’s confrontation rights against government’s reasons for nonproduction of witness)
United States v. Martin, 371 F.3d 446 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing reliability and considerations when admitting hearsay in revocation proceedings)