US v. Hall
No. 04-50193 (8-15-05). The 9th confronts whether Crawford is applicable to supervised release (SR) revocation hearings. The 9th holds that it is not. Crawford is taken as a trial right. The Supremes in Morrisey recognized that parole hearings do not get the full range of constitutional rights, and the analysis is one of due process rather than confrontation. This holding follows both the 2nd and 8th Circuits. Turning to this case, where the violation was for domestic violence, and the victim could not be found, the 9th further held that due process, as outlined in Comito, was not violated by allowing hearsay testimony of the abuse. There were hearsay exceptions that applied (medical) and there were nonhearsay evidence (photos) that supported the revocation.