Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-12676/USCOURTS-ca11-23-12676-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Santiago Salcedo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12676

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SANTIAGO SALCEDO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20286-CMA-16

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-12676 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/12/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12676

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Santiago Salcedo appeals the revocation of his supervised release based on the district court’s determination that he violated 

the conditions of his supervised release by committing the offense 

of simple battery. He asserts his due process rights were violated 

by the admission of an identifying text message containing hearsay 

into evidence at his revocation hearing. The text message was between the victim, M.M., and her 16-year-old daughter, neither of 

whom testified at the hearing. The text message was admitted 

through the testimony of M.M.’s mother, Reyna Morales. After 

review,1 we affirm the district court. 

A defendant’s supervised release may be revoked if the district court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that “the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3). The preponderance of the evidence standard “simply 

requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is 

more probable than its nonexistence.” United States v. Trainor, 376 

F.3d 1325, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). 

1 “We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” 

United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 946 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court’s 

conclusion that a defendant violated the terms of his supervised release is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 413 (11th 

Cir. 1994). We review questions of constitutional law de novo. United States v. 

Whatley, 719 F.3d 1206, 1213 (11th Cir. 2013).

USCA11 Case: 23-12676 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/12/2024 Page: 2 of 5
23-12676 Opinion of the Court 3

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay is an out-ofcourt statement offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted 

in the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The Federal Rules of Evidence generally prohibit hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. “Although the 

Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in supervised release revocation hearings, the admissibility of hearsay is not automatic.” 

United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 114 (11th Cir. 1994). A defendant is entitled to minimal due process requirements, including “the 

right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.” Id. In deciding whether to admit hearsay, the district “court must balance 

the defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses against the 

grounds asserted by the government for denying confrontation.” 

Id. The district court must also determine that the statement is 

reliable. Id. The district court’s failure to make such findings violates a defendant’s right to due process. Id. Nonetheless, a district 

court’s failure to make findings pursuant to the balancing or reliability tests is reviewed for harmless error. Id. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting 

the text message because it conducted a Frazier analysis and implicitly found the text message to be reliable. Particularly, the court 

balanced Salcedo’s right to confront adverse witnesses against the 

Government’s argument that it did not wish to bring the 16-yearold who received the text messages into court and that many domestic violence victims such as M.M. do not wish to testify. See 

Frazier, 26 F.3d at 114. After Salcedo objected to the introduction 

of the text messages between M.M. and her daughter, the court 

questioned the Government about the reliability of the text 

USCA11 Case: 23-12676 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/12/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-12676

messages, particularly by asking clarifying questions to the Government’s witness Morales. The court’s dialogue between the parties 

and Government’s witness, as well as its decision to permit Salcedo 

to conduct voir dire of the witness before it decided to overrule the 

objection, show that it conducted a Frazier analysis and determined 

the evidence was reliable. 

Further, the court’s Frazier analysis was proper because it 

conducted a dialogue with the Government and Morales to learn 

more information about the origin of the text message and why the 

sender and the receiver were not testifying. It acknowledged that 

many domestic violence victims, such as M.M., do not wish to testify and learned through Salcedo that M.M. would testify to the opposite of the message. It further learned the Government did not 

want to have M.M.’s 16-year-old daughter testify. Additionally, the

court found the text message to be reliable because Morales testified (1) about how she obtained the message, (2) that Salcedo was 

known as “Chino,” (3) about the messages that she personally received from M.M. regarding the assault, (4) about what the messages led Morales to do, and (5) about her knowledge of M.M. and 

Salcedo’s past relationship. Further, the events of May, 23, 2023—

when police officers located M.M. with Salcedo and found M.M. in 

a physical condition consistent with the text messages—further 

corroborated the text message. 

The court did not abuse its discretion or violate Salcedo’s 

due process rights in admitting the text message identifying 

Salcedo. The court did not abuse its discretion in finding Salcedo 

USCA11 Case: 23-12676 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/12/2024 Page: 4 of 5
23-12676 Opinion of the Court 5

violated his supervised release by committing the offense of simple 

battery. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-12676 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/12/2024 Page: 5 of 5