Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): protections in the context of their revocation hearings. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488-489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (stating that a parolee is entitled to confront adverse witnesses in a revocation hearing unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing such confrontation); Fed. R.Crim. Pro. 32.1(a)(2)(D) (providing that a person accused of violating probation or supervised release is entitled to a revocation hearing and an opportunity to confront adverse witnesses). In United States v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640, 642-43 (8th Cir.1986), we held that the trial court in a revocation proceeding must “balance the [defendant’s] right to confront a witness against the grounds asserted by the government for not requiring confrontation.” Id. (<HOLDING>). The need to apply this balancing test is well 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defense counsel was defective for failing to understand the laboratory tests performed and the inferences that one could logically draw from the results when challenging the states expert (B) holding that the trial court had properly granted prices motion for new trial because while the state properly introduced identification testimony from a police officer who was not a witness to the offense it improperly elicited testimony that the witness was in fact a police officer who knew the defendant from working in his neighborhood (C) holding that it was not error to allow the government to introduce urinalysis laboratory results from a california laboratory through a probation officer who had not prepared the report and without live testimony from the laboratory technicians because the hearsay was reliable and the proposed testimony was of little value (D) holding that the cumulative effect of the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant constructively possessed the methamphetamine laboratory discovered in a bedroom she shared with a renter (E) holding that the admission of a report was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove its truth but to impeach the veracity of the witnesss direct testimony
Output (English): holding that the trial court had properly granted prices motion for new trial because while the state properly introduced identification testimony from a police officer who was not a witness to the offense it improperly elicited testimony that the witness was in fact a police officer who knew the defendant from working in his neighborhood