United States v. Noel Ramirez-Mendoza
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Noel Ramirez-Mendoza (Ramirez-Mendoza) appeals the district court order revoking his supervised release and imposing a new sentence. We reverse and remand.
1. Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply to revocation proceedings, see United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, 987 (9th Cir.2005), admission of hearsay evidence during revocation must satisfy the Fifth Amendment right to due process. See United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir.2008). Unless the government shows good cause, the right to confront adverse witnesses is among a releasee’s due process guarantees. See id.
2. Consideration of hearsay evidence at a revocation proceeding requires the court to balance the releasee’s interest in con frontation against the government’s “good cause” for denying such confrontation. United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.1999). The district court erred when it failed to perform this analysis, and thereby violated Ramirez-Mendoza’s right to due process. See id. at 1172-73 . Accordingly, it was error for the district court to sustain the assault allegation that was predicated upon the hearsay evidence. See id. at 1173 .