106 F.4th 1040
10th Cir.2024Background
- Maurice Williams' supervised release was revoked after evidence was presented that he sold fentanyl to a confidential informant (CI) during a controlled buy.
- Williams was previously convicted on drug and firearm charges, with his supervised release revoked more than once for new violations.
- The government relied on testimony from police officers and a video of the controlled buy, but the CI was not present at the hearing.
- Williams challenged the evidence on grounds that the CI should have been subject to cross-examination and that the physical search of the CI before the buy was insufficient.
- The district court found a violation based on the fentanyl sale but not based on firearm possession, and sentenced Williams to 24 months' imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by not conducting an interest-of-justice balancing test under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C) concerning the CI's absence | Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) requires the court to assess if the CI should have been subject to confrontation; the evidence relied on CI's statements, so hearsay balancing was mandatory | Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) does not require a balancing test unless hearsay is admitted for its truth; the court relied only on non-hearsay evidence or the effect/context of CI's statements | No balancing test was required; no hearsay was admitted for its truth |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation based on selling fentanyl | The lack of a thorough search left open the possibility that the CI brought fentanyl herself, creating reasonable doubt | Officers conducted a substantial pre-buy search, CI's actions and surveillance corroborated sale; perfect search is not required for preponderance of evidence standard | Evidence was sufficient for preponderance standard, despite less-than-intrusive search |
| Whether the district court improperly shifted the burden to Williams to prove the CI possessed fentanyl beforehand | Court's reasoning implied Williams had to disprove the CI's possession | Court inferred sale from the evidence; did not require Williams to prove innocence | No improper burden shift occurred |
| Whether the absence of additional corroborating evidence undermined the sufficiency of the government's case | Absence of forensics, marked money recovery, or video of actual handover weakened government's case | Not all evidence is required; context, structure of buy, and post-buy circumstances suffice under the preponderance standard | Lack of additional evidence did not undermine sufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2016) (discusses standard for revocation and confrontation rights under Rule 32.1)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (establishes due process requirements for parole and supervised release revocation)
- United States v. Avery, 295 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2002) (addresses search practices in controlled buys)
- United States v. Nelson, 450 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2006) (corroborative value of formalities in controlled drug buys)
- United States v. Artez, 389 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2004) (details common formalities of controlled buys)
- United States v. Murry, 31 F.4th 1274 (10th Cir. 2022) (statements for effect on listener not hearsay)
- United States v. Smalls, 605 F.3d 765 (10th Cir. 2010) (CI statements not hearsay if offered for context)