United States v. Rondell Leeth

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Rondell Love Leeth’s supervised release was revoked for use of marijuana. Leeth appeals the district court’s admission of the telephonic testimony of a technician from the laboratory that tested Appellant’s urine samples and reported positive results. Appellant asserts that the admission of this testimony violated his due process right to confrontation under Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), and that the district court erred by failing to engage in the balancing required under United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.1999). Whether a defendant has received due process at a revocation hearing is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir.2008). “A due process violation at a revocation proceeding is subject to harmless error analysis.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not recite the facts here as they are known to the parties. We affirm.

“[Ejvery releasee is guaranteed the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses at a revocation hearing, unless the government shows good cause for not producing the witnesses.” Comito,…