# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 24 38

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ri ck y Lee Jo hn so n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

18 , 20 13
Fil ed : M arch 25 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ri ck y Lee Jo hn so n ap pe al s fro m a fin al jud gm en t en te red by th e di st ric t co ur t

rev ok in g hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d se nt en ci ng hi m to 21 m on th s im pr is on m en t. He

arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s co ns id erat io n of a po li ce rep or t, whi ch a pr ob at io n

of fic er read in to ev id en ce, vi ol at ed hi s li m it ed du e pr oc es s rig ht s to qu es ti on ad ve rs e
wit ne ss es at a rev oc at io n he ari ng

. F o r t he fo ll owi ng reas on s, we va cat e Jo hn so n’s

se nt en ce an d re m an d t he cas e.I.

In 20 07

, Jo hn so n wa s c on vi ct ed of co ns pi racy to po ss es s st ol en m ai l an d

se nt en ced to fif

te en m on th s im

pr is on m en t fo ll owe d by a th ree -y ea r te rm of supe rv ised

rel eas e. His su pe r v i s e d rel eas e be ga n on Mar ch 17

, 20 09

. The pr ob at io n of fic e

su bs eq ue nt ly fi le d a Pet it io n fo r Wa r r an t fo r Offen de r Und er Su pe rv is io n, al le gi ng

Jo hn so n ha d, am o n g o th er vi ol at io ns , be en arre st ed fo r se co nd -d eg ree fo rg ery an d

th eft of p ro pe rty, fail ed a dr ug tes t, an d fa il ed to co m pl et e d ru g t reat m en t.

At hi s rev oc at io n he ari ng , Jo hn so n ad m it te d th at he le ft a reh ab il it at io n faci li ty

an d th at “ he su bm it te d a ur in e sa m pl e fo r te st in g an d it r e t u r n e d po si ti ve fo r

m ari juan a.” Jo hn so n re f

u s e d to ad m it to th e pe nd in g st at e ch arg es

. The

go ve rn m e n t ’s a tt or ne y in fo rm ed th e co ur t th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d “ no wit ne ss es

su bp oe na ed ,” bu t su gg es te d th at th e pr ob at io n of fic er co ul d “ ba si cal ly read fro m th e

po li ce rep or t” to pr ov e th e al le ga ti on s of se co nd -d eg ree fo rg ery an d th eft of pr op ert y

. The po li ce rep or t reco un te d Jo hn so n’s co nf es si on to th e of

fic ers reg ard in g th e cri m es

of ch eck th eft an d fo rg ery in an d aro un d Jo ne sb or o, Ark an sa s. Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t

co ns id ered th e is su e, th e go ve rn m en t r e c o mm e nd ed ei th er ha vi ng th e pr ob at io n

of f i c e r r ead th e po li ce rep or t on th e reco rd

, or co nt in ui ng th e he ari ng

. The di st ric t

co ur t d eci de d t o p ro ceed . Jo hn so n’s at to rn ey ob jecte d:

You r Hon or , we wou ld —i f th ey do n’t ha ve an y wit ne ss es —an d I

un de rs ta nd th is is a r e vo cat io n pr oc eed in g, bu t th e Co ns ti tu ti on st il l

ap pl ie s. He’s go t a rig h t t o c o nf ro nt an d cro ss -ex am in e th e wit ne ss es
ag ai ns t hi m

. A n d i f [th e pr ob at io n of fic er] is —al l he ’s go in g to do is

pr od uc e a po li ce rep or t, th en Mr. Jo hn so n’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht is be in g vi ol at ed

.

The di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d th e ob jecti on , an d th e go ve rn m en t ’s at to rn ey ag reed

,
st at in g: “ I do n’t th in k th at ap pl ie s he re, You r Hon or .” The di st r i c t co ur t

ack no wled ge d th at Mr. Jo hn so n’s at to rn ey m ad e th e arg um en t to “ pr es erv e he r reco rd

-2

-t o a p p e a l ” th e is su e, bu t fo un d th at “ th e ru le s of ev id en ce

. . . are rel ax ed in a

rev oc at io n he ari ng be cau se it ’s no t t h e s a m e th in g as be in g ch arg ed wit h th e

un de rlyin g o ffen se .”

The pr ob at io n of

fic er th en read th e po li ce rep or t in to th e reco rd

. Afte r he ari ng

th e ev id en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th at it “ di dn ’t ha ve di rect ev id en ce fro m

th e of fic ers or th e pe op le or th e vi ct im s at th e st or es whe re th e ch eck s were pa ss ed .”

B u t d es pi te th at

, th e co ur t fo un d th at Jo hn so n vi ol at ed hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e b y
vi ol at in g a st at e la w an d se nt en ced hi m to twen ty-on e m on th s im pr is on m en t wit h an
ad di ti on al th ree- y ear su pe rv is ed rel eas e te rm

. A f te r th e co ur t m ad e it s ru li ng , Jo hn so n’s at to rn ey ag ai n ren ewed th e ob jecti on to th e po li ce rep or t b ecau se it was

te st im on ia l in na tu re an d vi ol at ed Jo hn so n’s “ rig ht to co nf ro nt an d cro ss -ex am in e

th o s e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t hi m ,” ci ti ng Crawf or d v. W as hi ng to n, 54 1 U.S. 36 (2 00 4)

. The di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th at “ th e reco r d i s v ery cl ear th at th e de fen da nt ’s

po si ti on is th at I can ’t gi ve y ou th e se nt en ce th at I ga ve y ou , it ’s jus t il le ga l. And so

y ou ha ve th at arg um en t o n a pp eal .”

Jo hn so n n ow ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t.

II.

Jo hn so n co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s co ns id e r a ti on of th e po li ce rep or t

vi ol at ed hi s li m it ed du e pr oc es s rig ht s an d th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e.

S e e Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 32 .1(b )(2 )(C)

. “ W e rev ie w qu es ti on s ari si ng un d e r t h e

co ns ti tu ti on de no v o , b ut we rev ie w t he cl ai m of a Ru le 32 .1(b )(2 )(C) vi ol at io n fo r

an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Uni te d Stat es v. Mart in

, 38 2 F.3d 84 0, 84 4 (8t h Cir. 20 04 )
(in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Th e g o v e rn m en t res po nd s th at th e un de rlyin g m eri ts of

Jo hn so n’s cl ai m are irr el ev an t be cau se (1 ) an y erro r was ha rm le ss , (2 ) th e is su e was

no t rai se d in th e di st ric t co ur t, an d (3 ) ev en if th e arg um en t w a s r a i s e d

, th e po li ce

rep or t was su ffi ci en tl y rel ia bl e to ou twei gh Jo hn so n’s rig ht to cro ss -ex am in e th e

-3

-arre st in g of

fic ers

. W e ad dr es s th e go ve rn m en t’s arg um en ts of ha rm le ss erro r an d

waiv er b efo re d is cu ss in g t he m eri ts of J oh ns on ’s app eal

.

A.

Fi rs t, th e go ve rn m e n t arg ue s th at an y erro r was ha rm le ss be cau se on rem an d

th e go ve rn m en t wou ld m erel y su bp oe na th e of fic ers who arre st ed Jo hn so n, fo ll ow th e

pr op er pr oc ed ur e, an d th e of fic ers wou ld te st ify i n co nf or m it y wit h th e rep or t. Bu t

whe th er an y of

fic ers wou ld te st ify co ns is te nt ly wit h th e po l ic e rep or t is no t

es ta bl is he d in th e reco rd an d can no t be kn own un t il th e of fic ers te st ify an d are

su bjec te d to cro ss -ex am in at io n. Mo reo ve r, th is arg um en t as su m es th at th e

g o v e r nm en t is en ti tl ed to a se co nd op po rtu ni ty to pr ov e Jo hn so n vi ol at ed hi s

su pe rv is ed rel eas e by in tro du ci ng th e of fic er’s te st im on y on rem an d, an d as di sc us se d

be lo w, we rem an d t he cas e wit ho ut ex pa ns io n o f th e rec or d. 1

Add it io na ll y , th e go ve rn m en t to ok th e p os it io n a t o ral arg um en t fo r th e fi rs t 1

ti m e th at at th e re vo cat io n he ari ng Jo hn so n ad m it te d to us in g m et ha m ph et am in e, whi ch wou ld qu al ify as a Grad e B vi ol at io n. Acco rd in g to th e go ve rn m en t, be cau se of th is ad m is si on , an y er r o r wou ld be ha rm le ss be cau se Jo hn so n’s gu id el in e ran ge

wou ld be th e sa m e. Eve n if Jo hn so n’s m et ha m ph et am in e us e wou ld res ul t in a Grad e B vi ol at io n, we do no t co ns id er arg um en ts fir st rai se d at or al arg um en t. Uni te d St at es

v. Lari so n, 43 2 F.3 d 92 1, 92 3 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Mo reo ve r, al th ou gh hi s dr ug te st in di cat ed he ha d us ed m et ha m ph et am in e an d m ari

juan a, at th e r e v o cat io n he ari ng Jo hn so n on ly ad m it te d to m ari juan a us e. Und er Ark an sa s la w, m ari juan a is a Sch ed ul e IV su bs ta nc e, Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 5- 64 -2 15 (a)( 1)

, an d po ss es si on of le ss th an 28 gr am s of a Sch ed ul e IV su bs ta nc e is a Cl as s A m is de m ean or , whi ch d o e s n ot

ex ceed on e y ear of im

pr is on m en t. Id

. § 41 9( b) (4 )(A); § 5

- 4

- 4 0 1 ( b) (1 ). Thu s, be cau se th e go ve rn m en t ne it he r at te m pt ed to p r o v e Jo hn so n po ss es se d

m et ha m ph et am in e no r in tro du ced an y ev id en ce th at Jo hn so n po ss es se d m or e th an 28

gr am s of m ari

juan a, hi s ad m is si on wou ld on ly qu al ify as a m is de m ean or , whi ch is a Grad e C vi ol at io n. See Uni te d Stat es Sen te nc in g Com m is si on , Gui de li ne s Man ua l, §7 B1 .1(a )(3 ) (No v. 2 01 2)

.

-4

-N e x t

, th e go ve rn m en t co nt en ds Jo hn so n di d no t rai se th e du e pr oc es s i s s u e

be lo w. Acco rd in g to th e go ve rn m en t, Jo hn so n fai le d to rai se th e is su e ba se d on Ru le

32 .1 be cau se he fo cu se d on Crawf or d v. W as hi ng to n, in st ead of sp eci fy in g a li m it ed

du e pr oc es s rig ht to cro ss -ex am in e ad ve rs e wit ne ss es

. Object io ns ge ne ral ly m us t be

sp eci fic an d ti m el y

. Uni te d St at es v. Pi ran i, 40 6 F.3 d 54 3, 5 4 9 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (en

ba nc ). “ Pres erv in g an is su e is a m at te r of m ak in g a ti m el y ob jecti on to th e tri al co ur t

an d cl earl y st at in g th e gr ou nd s fo r th e ob jecti on , so th at th e tri al c o u r t h a s a n

op po rtu ni ty to pr ev en t or co rrec t th e erro r i n t h e fir st in st an ce.” Uni te d St at es v.

W il li am s, 9 94 F.2d 12 87 , 12 94 (8t h C ir. 1 99 3) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Bas ed on ou r rev ie w of th e se nt en ci ng tra ns cri pt an d as th e d i s t r ic t co ur t

reco gn iz ed

, Jo hn so n’s at to rn ey pr es erv ed th e du e pr oc es s is su e fo r ap pe al

. The

ob jecti on was no t ba se d so le ly on Crawf or d v. W as hi ng to n. At th e be gi nn in g of th e
he ari ng , co un se l ob

jecte d to a se pa rat e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n of Jo hn so n’s rig ht to

cro ss -ex am in e an ad ve rs e wit ne ss , be fo r e l a te r refe ren ci ng Crawf or d. Fu rth er,

Jo hn so n’s at to rn ey ob

jecte d to th e ev id en ce th ro ug ho u t th e he ari ng , arg ui ng it

vi ol at ed th e Co ns ti tu ti on be cau se Jo hn so n ha d a rig ht to cro ss -ex am in e ad ve rs e
wit ne ss es , an d eve n em

ph as iz ed th at th e arg um en t was no t an ev id en ti ary on e. The

di st ric t co ur t res po nd ed

, “ I th in k th e reco rd is ve ry cl ear th at th e de fen da nt ’s po si ti on
is th at I can ’t gi ve y ou th e se nt en ce th at I ga ve y ou , it ’s jus t il le ga l. And so y ou ha ve

th at arg um en t o n a pp eal .”

Rev ie win g th e reco rd

, we co nc lu d e J o h n so n’s at to rn ey rai se d sp eci fic an d

ti m el y ob jecti o ns th ro ug ho ut th e he ari ng an d th e tri al co ur t ha d “ an op po rtu ni ty to

pr ev en t or co rrec t th e erro r in th e fir st in st an ce.” See Wi l l i a ms , 9 9 4 F.3 d at 12 94

. The refo re, Joh ns on ’s ob

jecti on was su ffi ci en t to pr es erv e th e is su e fo r ap pe al

, ev en

i f i t d id no t ex pl ic it ly ci te Ru le 32 .1, be cau se it ad eq ua te ly refe ren ced th e ri g h t t o

cro ss -ex am in e a d v e r s e wit ne ss es

. See Uni te d St at es v. Zen tg raf, 20 F.3 d 90 6, 90 9
(8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (fi nd in g th at Ru le 32 .1 ess en ti al ly co di fie d th e m in im al du e pr oc es s

-5

-req ui rem en ts reco gn iz ed by t he Su pr em e Co ur t t ha t al lo w for cro ss -ex am in at io n of

ad ve rs e wit ne ss es at a rev oc at io n h eari ng ).

B.

W it h res pe ct to th e m eri ts of hi s arg um en t, Jo hn so n co nt en ds th e pr ob at io n

of fic er’s te st im on y de pr iv ed hi m of hi s rig ht t o q u e s t i on ad ve rs e wit ne ss es

. A

de fen da nt is no t en ti tl ed to a tri al du rin g a rev oc at io n hea rin g; th e ru le s of evi de nc e
do no t ap pl y an d th e go ve rn m en t’s bu rd en of pr oo f is lo wered

. Uni te d St at es v. Bl ack

B ear, 54 2 F.3 d 24 9, 25 3- 55 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). A de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to “ a n

op po rtu ni ty to ap pe ar, pr es en t ev id en ce, an d qu es ti on an y ad ve rs e wit ne ss un le ss th e

co ur t de te rm in es th at th e in te res t o f jus ti ce do es no t req ui re th e wit ne ss to ap pe ar.”

Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 32 .1(b )(2 )(C)

. Mo reo ve r, t h e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at “ th e

m in im um req ui rem en ts of du e pr oc es s

. . . in cl ud e

. . . th e rig ht to co nf ro nt an d cro ss

ex am in e ad ve rs e wit ne ss es (u nl es s th e he ari ng of fic er sp eci fic al ly fin ds go od cau se

fo r no t al lo win g co nf

ro nt at io n) .” Mo rri ss ey v. Brewe r, 40 8 U.S. 47 1, 48 8- 89 (1 97 2)

.

The se req ui rem en t s ou tl in ed in Mo rri ss ey are no t ab so lu te : a di st ric t co ur t

sh ou ld “ ba la nc e t h e p r o ba ti on er’s rig ht to co nf ro nt a wit ne ss ag ai ns t th e gr ou nd s

as se rte d by the go ve rn m en t fo r no t re qu iri ng co nf ro nt at io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Bel l,

78 5 F.2 d 64 0, 64 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ). W hi le Bel l ack no wled ge d th at an y ba la nc in g te st

p r e c l u de s art ic ul at in g “ fix ed ru le s,” a co ur t sh ou ld ev al ua te se ve ral fact or s. Id

. a t

64 2- 43

. “ Fi rs t, th e co ur t sh ou ld as se ss th e ex pl an at io n th e go ve rn m en t of fers of why

co nf ro nt at io n is un de si rab le or im pr act ic al .” Id

. at 64 3. Seco nd

, a tri al co ur t sh ou ld

co ns id er “ th e rel ia bi li ty of th e ev id en ce whi ch th e go ve rn m en t of fers in pl ace of li ve

te st im on y .” Id

. Ult im a t e ly, if “ th e go ve rn m en t ne it he r sh ows th at pr es en ti ng li ve

te st im on y wou ld be un reas on ab ly bu rd en so m e no r of fers he ars ay ev id en ce th at be ars

in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty, th e pr ob at io ne r is en ti tl ed to co nf ro nt at io n.” Id

. Alt ho ug h th e
di st ric t co ur t di d no t co ns id er th e fact or s ou tl in ed in Bel l, we m ay weig h th e fact or s

on ap pe al be cau se th e reco rd was su ffi ci en tl y de ve lo pe d be lo w. See Bl ack Bea r, 54 2

-6

-F.3 d at 25 5 (“ Eve n if th e di st ric t co ur t do es no t co nd uc t th is ba la nc in g te st

, th is co ur t

m ay it se lf pe rfo rm th e an al y si s on rev ie w if th e un de rlyi n g f a c ts ha ve be en

su ffi ci en tl y

de ve lo pe d.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io n m ark s o m it te d) ).

Thi s cas e pr es en ts th e is su e of whe th er a po li ce rep or t al on e is su ff ic ie nt ly

rel ia bl e ev id en ce of cri m in al co nd uc t whe n th e go ve rn m en t of fers no ex pl an at io n fo r

th e arre st in g of

fic er’s un av ai la bi li ty. “Whil e po li ce rep or ts m ay be de m on st rab ly

rel ia bl e ev id en ce of th e fact th at an arre st was m ad e th ey are si gn ifi can tl y le ss rel ia bl e

ev id en ce of whe th er th e al le ga ti on s of cri m in al co nd uc t th ey co nt ai n are tru e.” Bel l,

7 8 4 F.2 d at 64 4. W he th er a po li ce rep or t is “ su ffi ci en tl y rel ia bl e, an d whe t h e r t h e

ex pe ns e an d in co nv en ie nc e of pr od uc in g li ve te st im on y are su f f ic ie nt ly gr eat

, to jus ti fy di sp en si ng wit h th e rig ht of co nf ro nt at io n, are qu es ti on s to be face d on a cas eby-cas e b as is , con si de rin g a ll th e rel ev an t circ um st an ces , in cl ud in g a ny adm is si on s

th at m ay ha ve be en m ad e by th e pr ob at io ne r or pa ro le e.” Id .; se e al so Uni te d St at es

v. Farm er, 56 7 F.3 d 34 3, 34 7- 48 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (h ol di ng di st ric t co ur t m ay pr op erl y

co ns id er st at em en ts in a po li ce rep or t whe n th e wit ne ss is un av ai la bl e an d th e rep or t

is co rro bo rat ed by oth er ev id en ce).

Turn in g to th e ci rcu m st an ces in th is cas e, no t o n l y h a v e we pr ev io us ly

qu es ti on ed th e rel ia bi li ty of po li ce rep or ts as ev id en ce of cri m in al co nd uc t, se e Bel l,

78 5 F.2 d at 64 4, b u t t h e g o ve rn m en t ha s pr es en te d no ex pl an at io n fo r why th e

arre st in g of

fic er, or an ot he r of

fic er who was pr es en t whe n th e co nf es si on was m ad e,

fai le d to te st ify at Jo hn so n’s h e a r i n g

. In st ead

, th e go ve rn m en t, rel y in g on Farm er,

arg ue s th at th e po li ce rep or t is rel ia bl e be cau se Jo hn so n’s co nf es si on do cu m en te d in

th e rep or t was gi ve n free ly an d be cau se th e rep or t was c o r r o b o r at ed

. In Farm er,
ho wev er, th e arre st in g of

fic ers te st ifi ed at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng an d were su bjec t to

cro ss -ex am in at io n. 56 7 F.3 d at 34 6- 47

. Here, no of fic er te st ifi ed

, an d Jo hn so n m ad e

no co rro bo rat in g st at em en ts reg ard i n g th e arre st in qu es ti on

. The on ly ev id en ce of

th e cri m in al co nd uc t be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t was t h e po li ce rep or t. Bal an ci ng th e

la ck of an ex pl an at io n fo r a wit ne ss ’s un av ai la bi li ty a ga in st th e rel ia bi li ty of th e

-7

-po li ce rep or t, we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t err ed : Jo hn so n’s rig ht to co nf ro nt an
ad ve rs e wit ne ss ou twei gh s “ th e gr ou nd s as se rte d by th e go ve rn m en t fo r no t req ui rin g

co nf ro nt at io n.” See Be ll , 78 5 F .2d at 6 42

.

C.

Fi na ll y , ha vi ng de te rm in ed th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve al lo wed Jo hn so n

th e op po rtu ni ty to cro ss -ex a mi n e a n ad ve rs e wit ne ss an d erre d by co ns id eri ng th e

fact s co nt ai ne d in th e po li ce rep or t read in to ev id en c e, we m us t de te rm in e whe th er

th e reco rd sh ou ld be reo pe ne d on rem an d. “ The co ns en su s am on g ou r si st er ci rcu it s
is th at ge ne ral ly whe re th e go ve rn m en t kn ew of it s ob li ga ti on to pr es en t ev id en ce an d

fai le d to do so , i t m ay

no t en te r ne w e vi de nc e on rem an d.” Uni te d St at es v. Dawn,

68 5 F.3 d 79 0, 79 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. W he th er we

al lo w th e reco rd to be ex pa nd ed res ts “ up on th e cl ari ty of th e is su e be lo w an d whe th er

we de em ed th e go ve rn m en t’s fa i l u r e o f pr oo f at th e in it ia l se nt en ci ng to be

ex cu sa bl e.” See Uni te d St at es v. Oss an a, 63 8 F.3 d 89 5, 90 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (h ol di ng

va gu e o bjec ti on jus ti fie d e xp an si on of s en te nc in g re co rd ).

Afte r Jo hn so n refu se d to ad m it to th e ad di ti on al al le ga ti on s of se co nd -d eg ree

fo rg ery an d th eft of pr op ert y , th e go ve rn m en t ’s at to rn ey s ack no wled ge d th e

go ve rn m en t co ul d n ot ad eq ua te ly pro ve th e cri m in al co nd uc t:

W e do n’t ha ve an y w i t n es se s. The re were no wit ne ss es su bp oe na ed

. [The pr ob at io n offi cer] can ba si cal ly read fr om th e p ol ic e rep or t of the Apr il 12 th vi ol at io n. Neit he r on e of us ha ve b e e n g i v e n an y th in g el se

. So I can ’t—I ca n’t p ro ceed on an y th in g e ls e bu t th at . I’ m em ba rras se d by tha t, b ut I can ’t m ak e it up

.

Aft e r t h e di st ric t co ur t su gg es te d th e arre st in g of fic er was no t ne ces sa ry , th e

go ve rn m en t’s at to rn e y a g reed an d st at ed

, “ You do no t ne ed it .” Alt ho ug h th e

go ve rn m en t’s at to rn ey di d su gg es t a co nt in ua nc e, co un se l di d no t req ue st on e an d

-8

-as se rte d th e co ur t co ul d “ pr oc eed on [th e pr ob at io n of fic er’s] te st im on y reg ard in g th e Apr il 12 th of

fen se .” In de ed

, aft er Jo hn so n’s at to rn ey ob jecte d to th e proba tio n of

fic er

m erel y read in g th e arre st rep or t in to ev id en ce be cau se it vi ol at ed a co ns ti t u t i o na l
rig ht

, th e go ve rn m en t’s at to rn ey res po nd ed : “ I do n’t th in k th at ap pl ie s he re, You r

Hon or .”

The refo re, “ [u ]nde r th es e ci rcu m st an ces , we co nc lu de th at the G ove rn m en t ha d

a fu ll an d fai r op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t it s ev id en ce an d th at we sh ou ld fo ll ow t he

tra di ti on al pa th of li m it in g th e Gov ern m en t to on e bi t e at th e ap pl e.” See Uni te d

St at es v. Tho m as , 63 0 F.3 d 10 55

, 10 57 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Eve n if th e reco rd “ refl ect [s ] so m e co nf us io n,” it is cl ear

th at “ th e Gov ern m en t cl earl y un de r s t o o d i t s bu rd en ” fro m th e be gi nn in g of th e
he a r i ng

. See id

. Bec au se th e go ve rn m en t kn ew of it s ob li ga ti on an d in ex cu sa bl y
fai le d to m eet it

, th is cas e is rem an de d wit ho ut th e op po rtu ni ty to ex pa nd th e reco rd

.

III.

Jo hn so n’s se nt en ce is va cat ed an d th e cas e is rem an de d to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r

re-s en te nc in g ba se d on th e ex is ti ng reco rd al read y be fo re it

, wit ho ut th e op po rtu ni ty

to ex pa nd th e reco rd

, an d wit ho ut co ns id eri ng th e co nt en t s of th e po li ce rep or t

de ta il in g t he Apri l 1 2, 2 01 2, co nd uc t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-