The Court affirmed the revocation of Carl Rose’s supervised release based on an alleged aggravated-assault. The district court concluded there was “ample evidence” of the assault based on the victim’s out-of-court statements identifying Rose, as well as by officer testimony, body-camera footage, and the recovery of a gun and a bloody knife from Rose. Rose’s supervised release was revoked, and he was sentenced to 48 months in prison.
On appeal, Third Circuit began by reiterating that only a limited right to confrontation under Fifth Amendment due process applies in supervised release proceedings—not the standards set under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment or the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under United States v. Lloyd, the Third Circuit balances the defendant’s confrontation interest, driven largely by reliability, against the government’s reasons for not producing the witness.
In this case, the hearsay statements from the alleged victim weighed in favor of admissibility based on their apparent reliability–they were corroborated by officer testimony, the victim’s detailed description of Rose, and they were made while the victim was bleeding from multiple stab wounds. The Court held that the hearsay statements were reliable under these circumstances.
Additionally, the Government’s failure to produce the victim as a witness at the revocation hearing was excusable, also weighing in favor of admissibility, because the Government had made diligent efforts to secure her appearance. These efforts included, among other things, issuing a subpoena for her appearance at the revocation hearing, physically visiting her address multiple times, checking databases, and making phone calls.
Appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Opinion by Smith, joined by Shwartz and Freeman.