United States v. Myra Minks

MEMORANDUM

Myra Minks appeals the district court’s revocation of her supervised release. She argues that the district court’s admission of hearsay testimony at her revocation hearing violated her due process rights and was prejudicial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo whether the district court violated Minks’s due process rights. United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir.2008). Violations of such constitutional guarantees are subject to harmless error review. Id.

The Sixth Amendment right of confrontation does not apply in supervised release revocation hearings, United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, 985 (9th Cir.2005); and, generally speaking, hearsay may be admissible, see United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (1999). However, under some circumstances, the admission of unreliable hearsay at a revocation hearing can rise to the level of a due process violation. See Hall, 419 F.3d at 986 .

Lirakis’s statements to the police officer were hearsay but were amply corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses and by physical evidence found by Minks’s person. However, even if the statements should not have been received, the…