US v. Williams: Williams was serving a term of supervised release following 1999 drug convictions in 2023 when a woman he had been living with contacted police. She alleged, during an in-person interview, that, after an argument, Williams had strangled her and “slapped her repeatedly.” She provided pictures of injuries taken on her cell phone (supplemented by pictures taken by police). She provided the same allegation (and evidence) to Williams’ probation officer, who sought to have his term of supervised release revoked.
At a revocation hearing months later (it’s not clear why it took so long), the complaining witness did not appear. After hearing testimony from the police officer who took her statement (as well as body camera footage of the interview) and other evidence, the district court ordered briefing on whether it could consider those statements. At a second hearing, the district court concluded that the statements were admissible, holding that the Government showed good cause based on its attempts to contact the complainant and that the “totality of the evidence” showed her statements were reliable. The court concluded that Williams violated his conditions of supervised release, revoked that term, and imposed a sentence of 24 months in prison (followed by 12 more months of supervised release).
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the revocation and sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the complainant’s statements were admissible. Unlike the district court in Wheeler, the district court here did recognize the need for balancing the interests of the parties and did so. Furthermore, there was no abuse of discretion in its conclusion that the Government had done enough to try and secure the complainant’s presence at the revocation hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment