Supervised Release – revocation — hearsay

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Supervised Release – revocation — hearsay

Where the defendant’s supervised release was revoked based on hearsay, without an “interest of justice” finding, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C), the revocation must be vacated.

“Police reports are not presumed to be categorically reliable. See Downie v. Klincar, 759 F. Supp. 425, 428 (N.D. Ill. 1991). As Judge Moran explained in Downie, police reports can be adversarial in nature, arising from a confrontation between a suspect and a police officer. They can also be advocacy pieces, written for prosecutors to use in deciding whether or how to charge a suspect. A police officer thus may have many reasons to present events in a non-neutral light and cannot be assumed to have recorded the relevant events in an entirely neutral way. Even the most candid witness will naturally remember and recount events in a light that supports the story he is trying to tell. These concerns led Congress to exclude police reports from the hearsay exception for public records and reports found in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) when offered in criminal cases. Id. Although the rules of evidence do not apply to revocation hearings, police reports are not necessarily any more reliable in revocation hearings than they are at trial, so Congress’ concerns apply to both contexts. Id. at 429–30. We cannot simply assume that any police report, including this one, is reliable without more information or corroborating evidence.”

Vacated and Remanded.

13-1488 U.S. v. Jordan

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Myerscough, J., Hamilton, J.