hearsay was a bit contrary to this court's holding in us becoming so and in violation of mr mr miller if you process right the confrontation the court should reverse and remand here the court must weigh the defendant's right to confront against the government's good cause for denying that right and when we look at the right to confront that itself is composed of two factors for the court to consider first the importance of the evidence and then the nature of the evidence rather a liability of the evidence thinking briefly about the importance of the evidence in this case i think it's fair to say that it was the essential piece of evidence without the hearsay testimony admitted through officer baker there is nothing to say that there even was an assault much less to say that a very different case in the kmiec mito scenario thank your honor at first we must start with the proposition which was an unstated and kmita that unsworn verbal allegations are in general the least reliable type of evidence least reliable type of hearsay so that's the starting point that's the baseline from there becomes the government's task to try and prove that there are reliability here the government spends a good deal of time in its papers trying to argue that these statements fall within one of the traditional he options either an excited utterance or present sense impression the district court never made those findings and there are no facts in the record to support such a finding with respect to the other evidence yes there is some evidence in the record that would corroborate tend to corroborate the reliability of the statements but that's true in every case the word is that the corroborating evidence is what makes it reliable well the evidence at the government points  are are these the scene where there was there was blood where mr miller was apprehended mr martinez is id all of the things that were found at the scene after the gun after the police said that i thought the victim said that there were three people involved in the incident evidence that mr kmita was the person who had actually done the unauthorized purchases well i think that i think that might in part of issue the other issue was that whether or not mr kmita actually had permission to take withdrawals because he said that he had been with money from the account but the part of the defense was that he had permission to do that the point being is that there was some evidence to corroborate the initial hearsay statements that in that case that these withdrawals are authorized and here that  victim who the police contacted immediately after this statement he's all bloodied up he makes a statement as to who actually did the crime he can point it specifically to mr miller  the officer immediately went to the scene i think was like a block away right and saw and saw blood trails leading to the travel shoes and found the victim's i d and from there that level of cooperation is not enough it's looked at that other evidence that i'm mentioning there to say that the hearsay statements were sufficiently reliable and that they could be admitted for that reason it noted that mr hall had  a strong interest in confronting but it also noted that the statements were highly reliable because of all these other factors the other witnesses the other evidence that was indisputably admissible at the hearing right but in hall there was two different type of conduct there was  the hitting of the victim which was witnessed by a third party so that's pretty substantial a crab aeration and there was also a charge of false imprisonment which we found to be not corroborated because that came found these other statements in the context of the assault are reliable so there's actually there's absolute some spillover there i think that's quite explicit in the court's reasoning i do want to talk just briefly about the other reasons why that evidence is unreliable your honor first as i mentioned the papers mr martinez was drunk at the time he was a bitch really drunk mr big officer baker said that he would frequently encounter him intoxicated in the neighborhood and he just as the court has already noted suffered a pretty serious trauma to the head and face now again i contention that without the hearsay statements there's no evidence even the assault took place that's very plausible under the conditions that mister martinez found himself that night that he could have fallen down those very stairs where his id in the in the blood were found  importantly your owners also want to talk about the governor the good cause here and this case the government's efforts to find martinez were just entirely on satisfactory they took place about three weeks before the hearing no sign the fact that the hearing was six months after the incident in question here and the officers just did not do any of the things that we would normally expect police officers to do when they're making earnest good faith attempts to find a way to go residence where  and on cross examination after she had said these are the two things that i did the try and find martinez when i was questioning her then said oh yeah and i also ran his name through records and that's the only address that i could found find but they didn't do any of the things that you would expect they didn't talk to the neighbors they didn't go to the victim indicated that he didn't want to prosecute is it fair to say that he would have been uncooperative witness i don't think it's fair to say that at all your honor there is some indication on the record that back in january martinez indicated that he didn't want to participate in the prosecution on this on the state case against mr miller but again that's six months prior and it's clear that the government in this case wasn't relying on that statement because they did make efforts three weeks prior to the hearing to try and find him although as i would argue they were completely during an adequate efforts to try and locate martinez so your honors i'm got out of time what little time i do have a we have please the court laurence kasper for appellee the united states your honors the hearsay statements identifying miller as the assailant were made during the assault scene while blood was still running down the victim's face were fully corroborated by the independent evidence and were balanced against reasonable efforts to locate the victim the district court properly balanced the committal factors weighing miller's interest in going to how much evidence reasonable you want to see you stop my department once found out that he l and then had a cell phone number call that but didn't leave a message that it was that the extent of the effort to locate time to pick them no your honor there were there were multiple efforts it was a multifaceted effort by by the police officers here they did check for the last known address for the for the victim they can as as judged by as indicated it came back to the address where they had resided together we sent the officer to that location the officer when inside the location interviewed the individual looked for items within the residence that might tend to show that the individual still there clearly the victim was no longer residing there as a last measure we made this this phone this phone call effort was made as in addition to the other efforts that effort was unsuccessful and i understand that the district court had some reservations about that one piece of the effort to locate the victim but remember this came on the heels of knowing that the victim would not cooperate with the state in addition the defense itself made efforts to locate the victim and couldn't do so so with all of that we do believe that these efforts were sufficient they were reasonably when they learned one of the police that he wouldn't cooperate very much my understanding of the chronology is that several days after the assault the police determined that he would not cooperat e then for six months they knew that he was going to cooperate but the the police may have known that my office first received this case in april may timeframe the and in june we received that information promptly upon our receiving that information we made these additional efforts to locate the victim to try to do they should officer made any effort to locate the probation officer highest penalties i would note however that the court here sentenced below the guidelines for the grade a a violation the court sentenced to twelve months the grade a low end was fifteen months the high end of the grade c was ten months but you that's necessary regardless of whether it fits that strict definition the point is that the statement carried with it a high degree in addition of reliability it was made shortly after the beating while the victim was at the doorstep of the good samaritan who had called the police and had not yet been transported to the hospital moreover the evidence introduced during their education hearing one tremendous credibility of the victim statements and it's important to go through each and each of those items because the substantial evidence  the crime scene limited miller's interest in confrontation and showed by preponderance and more the miller was involved in the assault miller who resides an hour away in campo california pages eighty one and eighty nine of the record is found at the scene of the assault after midnight in close temporal proximity of the assault and within one block of where the victim is located police find a with blood trail leading from miller's mother's apartment where the victim then resided to miller pages thirty seven forty  forty three in the midst of the blood trail on the stairway near miller's mother's apartment pages forty three forty four and sixty police located the victim's california identification card again within sixty feet of where miller's found miller has blood splatter on his shoes as testified to by both police officers pages thirty two and fifty seven and minor abrasions on his leg that went off officer testified which was a fresh abrasion page fifty nine this evidence is miller's involvement there are also photos taken of the victim pages one twenty seven one twenty eight and of miller one twenty nine and one thirty which certainly show by a preponderance remember the standard here is a preponderance standard who was who in fact was victimized and in fact that the defendant or the victims didn't simply fall in fact officer baker observed substantial facial injuries page twenty nine and miller himself required absolutely no first date by preponderance and i'd argue the court to look to the second circuit's decision and shen were similar evidence was held to have indicated that an assault took place and the  page one twenty four of that case cite here to your honor as in unlike in kmita oh the supporting evidence here was not hearsay as in hall here to the physical evidence corroborated and fully corroborated the victim's account as judge when has already indicated by her questionings these indicia of reliability one significant credibility of the victim's account these factors lessen miller's interest in confrontation this court however need not find that the hearsay evidence was not important to affirm the district court in fact this case closely resembles the campos decision in unpublished decision cited in our brief at three seventy four fed appendix seven thirty two in that case a supervisor of lease case which campos allegedly committed a bank robbery and violated supervised release in so doing there this court held that although hearsay evidence was important to the district court's findings campus's confrontation interest was weak because the evidence was reliable and he could identify no witness the mike might bring the veracity of the evidence into question in campos the supporting evidence your honour's included surveillance photographs from the bank robbery showing the release see the bank near the time the scene of the crime in addition police records in that case showed sigma significant number of twenty dollar bill stone from the bank and campos was arrested with a significant number of dollar bills similar to the evidence including the physical evidence the blood found on the sneakers the observations of the officers and the location of the appellant at the scene of the crime so there are the court held that there was reliable uncontroverted evidence to important understand from the outset that the government did not know that the whereabouts but we did make reasonable good faith efforts to locate the victim well the the san diego police department did it your i guess your arrest the probation officer did have a warrant issued for the arrest of the defendant in this case he did not have any there was no warrant outstanding for the victim in this case but obviously that  arrest warrant with respect to the defendant was satisfied and we proceeded with this case beginning well then even wasn't reporting to the probation officer i'm sorry  a record of of intoxication but to my knowledge there was nothing to indicate that he was on supervised released or otherwise had any reporting obligations but as i said the officer at the end of the hearing did the judge actually balance to the balancing your honor and i think that's that's an important question here and if i think here it just kind of it kind of just comes to an end w factors in reaching an analysis there are no magic words here but the record shows that the court had read camino page one hundred four there he was familiar with the balancing requirement page one hundred five in fact he was specifically informed by defense counsel regarding the community test and the parties extensively argued the factors page ninety three was the defense's recitation judges are presumed in this in this court to know the law and there's no sure showing that this court that the court below expressed expressly misstated that test so we do believe that the evidence here was sufficient on that on that issue and for those reasons for these reasons and those stated in our brief we would ask that the court affirm the revocation of miller supervised release on the great a violation ok really quick points your honor interesting confrontation very high here because without the hearsay evidence there is no evidence that an assault took place much less that mr miller was involved i think urge the court to look at the photos cited by the government one twenty seven to one thirty of the record because i themselves were not aware at any time that our team has had indicated a lack of desire to cooperate so it should not be attributed to ashton that she gave up because she knew martinez had previously indicated a desire not to cooperate that was not something that she was pretty hard there's no denying that he suffered serious but number one stuff suffered serious injuries in this case around and that's and that's not the issue the issue is how did he sustain those injuries and again he was intoxicated officer baker testified that he could smell the alcohol coming off of murkiness when he was dealing with him at first instance and that he is a well known public drunk who has had a variety of other violations of the law hooding trespassing in domestic violence disputes at least three times police have come to the apartment to deal with domestic violence disputes between working as and ms miller so i think it's certainly at least as plausible that those injuries were sustained in some other fashion then the way that the government is suggesting so thank