United States v. Nathan McDowell, 973 F.3d 362

McDowell was sentenced in 2016 to one year imprisonment and three years of supervised release for cocaine distribution.
The government alleged McDowell violated supervised release by assaulting and robbing a victim with a handgun, possessing a firearm, and associating with criminals.
Minutes after the assault the victim placed a 911 call identifying McDowell, later made a police report at the station, and a detective interviewed the victim days later; the victim did not testify at the revocation hearing.
At the hearing Detective Justin Caid testified about the 911 call and the victim’s subsequent statements; no hearsay or confrontation objection was made by McDowell’s counsel (credibility was attacked in closing).
The district court revoked McDowell’s supervised release based on Caid’s testimony. On appeal McDowell argued the court erred by admitting out-of-court statements without a specific on-the-record good-cause finding to forgo confrontation.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error and affirmed, holding it was not clear that a sua sponte good-cause finding was required and that any possible error did not affect McDowell’s substantial rights because the 911 call was nontestimonial and independently sufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court must make an explicit on-the-record good-cause finding before admitting out-of-court statements in a supervised-release revocation when no objection is made	United States: No duty to make a sua sponte good-cause finding absent a confrontation/hearsay objection	McDowell: Court should have made a specific good-cause finding to admit the victim’s out-of-court statements	Court: Not clear or obvious that a sua sponte finding is required; no plain error because no controlling authority mandates it absent objection
Whether admission of the 911 call and related out-of-court statements (without confrontation) affected McDowell’s substantial rights under plain-error review	United States: The 911 call was nontestimonial (Davis) and alone would support the revocation, so any omission didn’t affect substantial rights	McDowell: Admission deprived him of due process to confront the declarant and affected the outcome	Court: 911 call was nontestimonial; even if error, it would not have changed the outcome, so no substantial-rights effect

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial vs. nontestimonial statement framework under Confrontation Clause)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (statements during ongoing emergency are nontestimonial)
United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 1995) (qualified confrontation right in revocation proceedings)
United States v. Jimison, 825 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2016) (requiring on-the-record good-cause findings where confrontation objection raised)
United States v. Minnitt, 617 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2010) (district court must make reasons part of the record when excusing confrontation after objection)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard elements)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standard for correcting forfeited errors to preserve fairness and integrity)