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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 5- 12 46

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

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.

St ev en so n G. Harr is on

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 Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 25 , 20 15
Fil ed : Dec em

be r 23 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

St ev en so n G. Harri so n ap pe al s fro m t h e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r rev ok in g hi s 1

su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d i m po si ng a se nt en ce o f 24 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Harri so n

arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co u r t e r r e d by ad m it ti ng he ars ay ev id en ce at th e rev oc at io n

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.he ari ng an d by fin di ng th at th e V i r g i n i a of fen se of as sa ul t on a la w en fo rcem en t

of fic er co ns ti tu te d a cri m e of vi ol en ce an d th us a Grad e A v io la ti on u n d e r t he U.S.

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l (U.S.S.G. or Gui de li ne s)

. Hav in g rev ie wed th e

di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to rev ok e su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n an d it s

de te rm in at io n of th e fact s un de rlyin g th at de ci si on fo r cl ear e r ro r, we affi rm

. See

Uni te d S ta te s v . Boyd, 79 2 F .3d 91 6, 9 19 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5)

.

Afte r Harri so n co m

pl et e d a fed eral se nt en ce of im pr is on m en t an d be ga n

se rv i n g a t e r m of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, th e go ve rn m en t fil ed a rev oc at io n pe ti ti on , al le gi ng th at Harri so n h ad vi ol at ed se ve ral co nd it io ns of hi s s up erv is ed rel eas e. At

th e rev oc at io n he ari ng , Ha rri so n a d m it te d se ve ral vi ol at io ns bu t de ni ed th at he ha d

co m m it te d th e al le ge d two fel on y of fen se s of as sa ul t on a la w en fo rcem en t of fic er in

th e C o mm o n w e al th of Virg in ia

. To pr ov e th e vi ol at io ns , t he go ve rn m en t cal le d as

a wit ne ss Uni te d Stat es pr ob at io n offi cer Brad le y Co x, who te st ifi ed to th e fact s set

fo rth in t h e go ve rn m en t’s rev oc at io n pe ti ti on , as well as th e fact s de sc rib ed in two Virg in ia arre st warran ts an d i n a Virg in ia po li ce i nc id en t re po rt. Harri so n ob jecte d

to Co x’s te st im on y , arg ui ng th at it co ns is te d so le ly of in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed to hi m by ot he rs who wer e n ot pr es en t to te st ify an d th eref or e vi ol at ed Harri so n’s rig ht to

c on fro nt an d cro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es un de r Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e

32 .1. The di st ric t co ur t o ve rru le d Har ris on ’s ob jecti on s.

Co x te st if

i e d th at he ha d sp ok en wit h Ro be rt Hag y , Harri so n’s su pe rv is in g

fed eral pr ob at io n of

fic er in Virg in ia

, who to ld Co x th at o n A u gu st 29

, 20 14

, Dete ct iv e Ro bi n McC oy, Dete ct iv e R.T. Fo st e r , a n d Serg ean t Pat ric ia Ell er of th e

Bri st ol , Vi rg in ia

, p o l i c e de pa rtment at te m pt ed to arre st Harri so n on an ou ts ta nd in g

fel on y warra nt

. W he n th e o f f i c e r s tri ed to ha nd cu ff Harri so n, he st ru gg le d, fo ug ht

,
at te m pt ed to fle e, an d ev en tu al ly br ok e free of th e of fic ers

. As Harri so n st art ed to ru n

do wn a fli gh t of st ai rs , Serg ean t Ell er an d Dete ct iv e McC oy gr ab be d on to Harri so n’s

sh irt in an effo rt to st op hi m

. The of fic ers he ld on whi le Harri so n co nt in ue d do wn th e

st ai rs , bu t Harri so n’s sh irt rip pe d, an d th e two of fic ers fel l do wn th e st ai rs , su st ai ni ng

-2

-in

juri es th at req ui red m ed ic al a t t en ti on

. Dete ct iv e Fo st er, who wit ne ss ed th es e

ev en ts , c on ti nu ed to pu rs ue Harri so n, who m an ag ed to esc ap e. Late r th at da y , f ou r

arre st warra nt s were is su ed fo r Harri so n in Bri st ol

, Virg in ia

. Two of th e warra nt s

were rel at ed to Harri so n’s al te rcat io n wit h Serg ean t Ell er an d Dete ct iv e McC oy an d

ch arg ed th e fel on y of

fen se of m al ic io us in

ju r y to a la w en fo rcem en t of fic er in

vi ol at io n of Virg in ia Co de se ct io n 18 .2-5 1.1

. The warra nt s st at ed th at Harri so n ha d

m al ic io us ly cau se d bo di ly in jury to Ell er an d McC oy wit h t h e i n t en t to m ai m , di sf ig ur e, di sa bl e, or ki ll

. The ot he r two warra nt s ch arg ed Harri so n wit h res is ti ng

arre st an d ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce, bo th m is de m ean or of fen se s, th e de ta il s of whi ch

w e re de sc rib ed in an in ci de nt rep or t fil ed by th e of fic ers

. Harri so n was ev e n t u a l l y

arre st ed in Flo rid a o n No ve m be r 14 , 20 14

.

Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t ad m it te d th is ev id en ce an d fo un d th at H a r r i s on ha d

co m m it te d th e vi ol at io n s al le ge d in th e rev oc at io n pe ti ti on , th e co ur t he ard a

st at em en t fro m Harri so n in whi ch he m ad e se ve ral ad m is s io ns reg ard in g th e

al te rcat io n wi th th e Vir gi ni a o ffi cers . Harris on st at ed , “ Do I d en y th at I ran

. . . ? I

do n o t d e n y t h a t

. . . . I ran ou t. And as I ran ou t, th ey gr ab be d m y sh irt .” Tr. of

Rev oc at io n Hr’g at 25

. He ack no wled g e d th at th e rev oc at io n pe ti ti on an d th e

in ci de nt rep or t st at ed th at th e of fic ers “ gr ab be d m

y sh irt

, an d m

y sh irt rip pe d an d th ey

sl ip pe d an d fel l do wn th e st ep s,” bu t he in si st ed

, “ I di dn ’t as sa ul t an y on e. I ran do wn

so m e st ai rs an d t he y

sl ip pe d a nd th ey

fel l.” Id

.

Harri so n fir st arg ue s th at th e d is tri ct co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by ad m it ti ng

th e he ars ay st at em en ts

, whi ch ha d th e effe ct of vi ol at in g H a rri so n’s li m it ed du epr oc es s rig ht to c o nf

ro nt an d cro ss -ex am in e th e ab se nt wit ne ss es

. Bec au se a

rev oc at io n he ari ng is no t a cri m in al tri al

, th e ru le s of ev id en ce do no t ap pl y , an d th e

go ve rn m en t be ars a le ss er b ur de n o f pr oo f. See Bo y d, 7 92 F.3d at 91 9; se e al so 18

U.S.C. § 35 83 (e)( 3) (s ta ti ng th at a co ur t m ay r e v ok e su pe rv is ed rel eas e if th e co ur t

fin ds a vi ol at io n by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce). A de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to “ an

op po rtu ni ty to

. . . 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

-3

-in te res t of jus ti ce do es no t req ui re th e wit ne ss to ap pe ar.” F e d

. R

. Cri m

. P.

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

. The di st ric t co ur t “ m us t ba la nc e th e [th e de fen da nt ’s] rig ht to co nf ro nt

a wit ne ss ag ai ns t th e gr o u 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.” Uni te d St at es v. Bel l, 78 5 F.2 d 64 0, 64 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ). The co ur t

sh ou ld co ns id er th e reas on s of fere d by th e go ve rn m en t to ex pl ai n “ why co nf ro nt at io n

is un de si rab le or im

pr act ic al ” an d th e rel ia bi li ty of th e e v i d e n c e of fere d by th e

go ve rn m en t in pl ace of li ve te st im on y

. Id

. at 64 3. If th e go ve rn m en t “ de m on st rat es

th at th e bu rd en of pr od uc in g li ve te st im on y wou ld be in or di na te an d of fers in it s pl ace

he ars ay ev id en ce th at is de m on st rab ly rel ia bl e,” th e de fen da nt m ay no t be en ti tl ed to

co nf ro nt at io n. Id

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t co nd uc t th is ba la nc in g te st on th e reco rd

at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng , bu t we m ay pe rfo rm th e an al y si s o n rev ie w be cau se th e

un de rlyin g fact s ha ve be en su ffi ci en tl y de ve lo pe d. See Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti n, 38 2

F.3 d 8 40 , 84 5 (8 th Cir . 20 04 ).

The go ve rn m en t d id no t ex pr es sl y off er an ex pl an at io n for no t pro du ci ng th e

li ve te st im on y of th e Virg in ia pr ob at io n of fic er who sp ok e wit h Co x ab ou t Harri so n’s

vi ol at io ns or th e Virg in ia of fic ers who pr ep ared th e in ci de nt rep or t an d swo re to th e

arre st warra nt s aft er th ei r al te rcat io n wit h Harri so n. It is ap pa ren t fro m th e reco rd

, ho wev er, th at th e li ve te st im on y of th es e wit ne ss es wou ld ha ve be en un reas on ab ly

bu rd en so m e, im

pr act ic al

, an d co st ly gi ve n th e co ns id erab le di st an ce th ey wou ld ha ve

be en req ui red to tra ve l. See, e.g ., Bel l, 79 5 F.2 d at 64 4 (n ot in g th at “ co ns id erab le

ex pe ns e” to se cu re th e pe rs on al ap pe aran ce of Kan sa s of fic ers at a rev oc at io n he ari ng

in Ark an sa s weig he d in fav or of fin di ng go od cau se n o t t o r eq ui re ap pe aran ce, bu t

de cl in in g to reac h th e is su e). The fact s pr es en te d he re are di st in gu is ha bl e fro m th os e

pr es en te d in Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 71 0 F.3 d 78 4, 78 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), whe re th e

go ve rn m en t of

fere d 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, ev en

th ou g h th e de fen da nt ’s rev oc at io n he ari ng was he ld in th e sa m e st at e in whi ch th e

ab se nt of fic er’s du ty st at io n was lo cat ed

. See Bel l, 78 5 F.2 d at 64 4- 45 (h ol di ng th at

th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to sh ow th at pr es en ti ng li ve te st im on y of of fic ers at rev oc at io n

-4

-he ari ng in Ark an sa s wou ld ha ve c a u se d si gn ifi can t di ffi cu lt y whe n th os e of fic ers

were al so lo cat ed in Arka ns as ).

In ad di ti on , th e go ve rn m en t de m on st rat ed th at th e Virg in ia arre st warra nt s an d

in ci de nt rep or t bo re in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty su ffi ci en t to di sp en se wit h th e of fic ers ’ li ve

te st im on y

. W he th er a po li ce repo rt is su ffi ci en tl y rel ia bl e is a qu es ti on we ex am in e

“ on a cas e-b y- c a s e b as is

, co ns id eri ng al l th e rel ev an t ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g an y

ad m is si on s th at m ay ha ve be en m ad e by th e [d efen da nt ]. ” Id

. at 64 4. Unl ik e a typic al

po li ce rep or t in whi ch an of fic er tra ns cri be s fact s of

fere d by a th ird -p art y vi ct im

, th e

in ci de nt rep or t in th is cas e was au th or ed by th e ve ry of fic er s who were th em se lv es

th e vi ct im s of an d ey ewit ne ss es to th e as sa ul t. On th is po in t, to o, Jo hn so n, whi ch

in vo lv ed po li ce rep or ts se tt in g fo rth th e fact s as de sc rib ed by th ird -p art y wit ne ss es

an d vi ct im s, is di st in gu is ha bl e. 71 0 F.3 d at 78 7. Dete ct iv e Fo st er, who pa rti ci pa te d

in th e at te m

pt ed arre st an d wi tn es se d t he alt erca ti on , aut ho red hi s repo rt o n t he da y

th e in ci de nt to ok pl ace. Dete ct iv e McC oy, on e of th e vi ct im s of th e as sa ul t, au th or ed

he r de ta il ed an d co m

pr eh en si ve rep or t on ly fo ur da y s la te r. The se two rep or ts were

fil ed whi le th e in ci de nt was f r es h in th e of

fic ers ’ m em or ie s, an d th ey se t fo rth a

co ns is te nt acco un t of th e ev en t. The two arre st warra nt s were is su ed by a m ag is tra te jud ge of th e Co m

m on weal th of Virg in ia

, who fo un d pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at

Harri so n ha d co m

m it te d th e fel on y of

fen se of m al ic io us in

jury to la w en fo rcem en t

of fic ers Ell er an d McC oy ba se d up on th e swo rn st at em en t of McC oy, he rs el f a vi ct im

of th e as sa ul t.

Mo reo ve r, Harri so n’s own st at em en ts at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng s u f f i c ie nt ly

co rro bo rat e th e arr e s t w a rran ts an d in ci de nt rep or t to m ak e it cl ear th at th ey were

rel ia bl e. See Bell

, 78 5 F.2d at 64 4. As no te d ab ov e, Harri so n ad m it te d to al l of the

co nd u c t s e t f

or th in th es e do cu m en ts

. Harri so n do es no t di sp ut e th at he ran fro m

of fic ers aft er th ey tri ed to arre st hi m ; th at th e of fic ers gr ab be d hi s sh irt in an effo rt to

st op hi m fro m fle ei ng ; or th at he fo rci bl y pu ll ed away fro m th em , te ari ng hi s sh irt an d

cau si n g th e of

fic ers to fal l do wn a fli gh t of st ai rs

. Harri so n as se rte d on ly th at th is

-5

-co nd uc t, an d th e co ns eq ue nc es f l owi ng th eref

ro m , sh ou ld no t co ns ti tu te m al ic io us

as sa ul t of a la w en fo rcem en t of fic er un de r Virg in ia la w—a le ga l arg um en t rat he r th an

a fact ua l di sp ut e. See Hol le y v. Co m m on weal th

, 60 4 S.E.2d 12 7, 13 0 (Va. Ct

. App

. 20 04 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t in te nt “ is a st at e of m in d whi ch m ay be pr ov ed by a pe rs on ’s

co nd uc t” an d th at “a p e r s o n is pr es um ed to in te nd th e im m ed ia te

, di rect

, an d

ne ces sa ry co ns eq ue nc es of hi s vo lu nt ary act ” (ci ta ti on s om it te d) ). Aga in

, th e fact of

th es e ad m is si on s di st in gu is he s J o hn so n, whe re th e de fen da nt m ad e no su ch

st at em en ts to co rro bo rat e th e h ears ay ev id en ce.

Acco rd in gl y , be cau se pr od uc in g th e li ve te st im on y of th e Virg in ia of fic ers at

th e Mi ss ou ri rev oc at i on he ari ng wou ld ha ve be en un reas on ab ly bu rd en so m e an d

i mp r act ic al

, an d be cau se th e ev id en ce of fere d in pl ace of th at te st im on y wa s

su ffi ci en tl y rel ia bl e, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ad m it ti ng Co x’s

te st im on y an d t he Virg in ia arre st warran ts an d i nc id en t re po rt.

Harri so n ne xt arg ue s th at t h e d i st ric t co ur t erre d in de te rm in in g th at th e Virg in ia fel on y of

fen se of “ m al ic io us bo di ly in jury to la w-en fo rcem en t of fic ers ,” Va.

Co de A n n

. § 1 8

. 2

- 51 .1, is a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” as de fin ed by U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a)

an d th us a Grad e A vi ol at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e un de r U.S.S.G. § 7 B 1

. 1 ( a ) ( 1)

. Harri so n co nt en ds th at

, un de r th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n, se e

Des cam ps v. Uni te d St at es , 13 3 S

. Ct

. 22 76

, 22 85 (2 01 3)

, th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d

co ns id er on ly th e st at ut or y el em en ts of t h e V i r g i n i a of fen se an d no t th e fact s of

Harri so n’s co nd uc t in de te rm in in g whe th er th e of fen se was a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r

th e Gui d e l i n e s , s ee Uni te d St at es v. Ly nc h, 61 1 F.3 d 93 2, 93 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(ex am in in g st at ut or y el em en ts of st at e of fen se to de te rm in e whe th er al le ge d vi ol at io n

of su pe rv is ed rel eas e was cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r § 4B 1.2 (a))

. He fu rth er co nt en ds

th at be cau se th e go ve rn m en t of fere d no pr oo f of th e st at ut or y el em en ts of th e Virg in ia

of fen se , th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in co nc lu di ng th at it was a cri m e of vi ol en ce an d th us

a Grad e A su pe rv is ed -rel eas e vi ol at io n un de r th e Gui de li ne s. W e rev ie w de no vo a

di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at an of fen se qu al ifi es as a cr i m e of vi ol en ce un de r

-6

-th e Gui de li ne s. See Uni te d St at es v. Tess m er, 65 9 F.3 d 71 6, 71 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er

cu ria m ), cert . den ie d, 1 32 S. Ct. 1 98 5 (2 01 2)

.

Und er § 7B 1.1 (a)( 1) of t h e G u i d e li ne s, a Grad e A vi ol at io n of su pe rv is ed

r el eas e is de fin ed to in cl ud e th e co m m is si on of a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” t h a t i s

pu ni sh ab le by m or e th an on e y ear in pr is on

. A “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” is de fin ed un de r § 4B 1.2 (a)( 1) of th e Gui de li ne s as a fel on y th at “ ha s as an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed

u s e , o r th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r.” The t w o Virg in ia warra nt s of a r r e s t id en ti fy th e sp eci fic st at ut or y pr ov is io n th at Harri so n

al le ge dl y vi ol at ed

, Virg in ia Co de se ct io n 18 .2-5 1.1

, an d di rect ly qu ot e th e pe rti ne nt

st at ut or y la ng ua ge , al l e g i n g th at Harri so n “ m al ic io us ly cau se [d ] bo di ly in jury to
[Ell er/ McC oy] wit h in te nt to m ai m , di sf ig ur e, di sa bl e[,] or ki ll

, an d k n owi ng or

ha vi ng reas on to kn ow th at su ch pe rs on was a law en fo rcem en t o ffi cer . . . en ga ge d

in th e pe rfo rm an ce of pu bl ic du ti es .” Add

. of App el la nt 5- 6. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t

ha d be fo re it th e st at ut or y el em en ts of th e Virg in ia of fen se , whi ch “ ha s as an el em en t

th e us e, at te m

pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t t h e p e r s o n of

an ot he r,” as req ui red to qu a l i f y as a cri m e of vi ol en ce an d as a Grad e A vi ol at io n

un de r th e Gui de li ne s. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in co nc lu di ng th at 2

th e Virg in ia of

fen se qu al ifi ed as a cri m e of vi ol en ce an d a Grad e A v i ol at io n of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

A di st ric t co ur t m ay rev ok e a de fen d a nt ’s te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e if th e

co ur t, “ pu rs ua nt to th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e ap pl ic ab le to rev oc at io n

Harr i so n do es no t ap pe ar to di sp ut e th at

, co ns id eri ng on ly th e st at ut or y 2

el em en ts of th e of

fen se , a vi ol at io n of Virg in ia co de se ct io n 18 .2-5 1.1 cat eg or ic al ly

qu al ifi es as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce.

-7

-or pr ob at io n or su pe rv is ed rel eas e, fin ds by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e

d e f e n da nt vi ol at ed a co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e.” 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e)( 3)

. Tho ug h no t al l ru le s ap pl ic ab le to cri m in al tri al s ap pl y st ric tl y to rev oc at io n he ari ng s,

th e de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to “ 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 d oe s n ot req ui re t he wit ne ss to ap pe ar.” Fed . R . C rim. P.

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

. If th e go ve rn m en t a s s e rts th at co nf ro nt at io n is “ un de si rab le or

im pr act ic al ,” th e di st ric t co ur t m us t ba la nc e th e de fen da nt ’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 th e go ve rn m en t fo r no t req ui rin g

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– 43 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ). Onl y

if “ th e go ve rn m en t de m on st rat es th at th e bu rd en of pr od uc in g li ve te st im on y wou ld

be in or di na te an d o ffer s i n i ts pl ace h ears ay ev id en ce tha t is dem on st rab ly rel ia bl e”

ha s it m ad e a su ffi ci en t sh owi ng of go od cau se to ov erco m e th e de fen da nt ’s rig ht to

co nf ro nt th e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t hi m

. Id

. at 64 3. If th e go ve rn m en t fai ls to m ak e su ch

a sh owi ng , th e de fen da nt ret ai ns th e rig ht to co nf ro nt th e wit ne ss es who se te st im on y

m ay res ul t in th e rev oc at io n of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 71 0

F.3 d 7 84 , 78 9 (8 th Cir . 20 13 ).

Here, the go ve rn m en t fa il ed to pr es en t any ev id en ce to su pp or t a fin di ng th at

pr od uc in g li ve te st im on y wou ld ha ve be en un reas on ab ly bu rd en so m e or im pr act ic al

. As th e co ur t no te s, at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng th e go ve rn m en t of fere d no ex pl an at io n

fo r it s fai lu re to pr od uc e th e li ve te st im on y of ei th er th e Virg in ia pr ob at io n of fic er or

th e Virg in ia po li ce of

fic ers

. The re is no ev id en ce of whi ch

, or ho w m an y , wit ne ss es

wou ld ha ve be en req ui red at th e h e a r i n g , e x act ly ho w far th ey wou ld ha ve ha d to 3

tra ve l, th e ti m e req ui red fo r th ei r tra ve l an d te st im on y , th e act ua l co st s as so ci at ed wit h

th ei r tra ve l, or an y pr of

es si on al ob li ga ti on s th at wou ld ha v e p r e v e nt ed th ei r tra ve l.

See Jo hn so n, 71 0 F.3 d at 78 9 (“ Bal an ci ng th e la ck of an ex pl an at io n fo r a wit ne ss ’s

Giv en th e n a t u r e o f th e he ars ay ev id en ce in th is cas e, it se em s en ti rel y 3 pl au si bl e th at on e of

fic er’s te st im on y co ul d ha ve co rro bo r a te d th e ev id en ce an d

pr ov id ed su ffi ci en t in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty to jus ti fy it s ad m is si on w i t ho ut th e li ve

te st im on y of a ll fou r Virg in ia off

ic ers in vo lv ed

.

-8

-un av ai la bi li ty ag ai ns t th e rel ia bi li ty of th e po li ce rep or t, we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d” in al lo win g in tro du ct io n of a po li ce rep or t wit ho ut th e te st im on y of th e

arre st in g of

fic er). Perh ap s we can ta ke jud ic ia l no ti ce of the ge og rap hi cal di st an ce

be twee n Bri st ol

, Virg in ia (as su m in g al l rel ev an t wit ne ss es were lo cat ed th ere— a fact

no t in th e reco rd ), an d Sp rin gf ie ld

, Mi ss ou ri. Bu t, th ere is no ev id en ce in th e reco rd

of ho w th at di st an ce crea te d an in or di na te bu rd en on th e go ve rn m en t’s ab il it y to cal l

li ve wit ne ss es at th e he ari ng

. See Bel l, 78 5 F.2 d at 64 4 (d ecl in in g to de ci de whe th er

th e “ co ns id erab le ex pe ns e” of tra ve l be twee n Wi c h i t a, Kan sa s, an d th e East ern

Dis tr i c t o f Ark an sa s wou ld co ns ti tu te go od cau se no t to req ui re li ve te st im on y of

arre st in g of

fic ers ). W it h no su ch ev id en ce pr es en te d, I res pe ct fu ll y di sa gr ee th at th e

fact s were su ffi ci en tl y d e ve lo pe d at th e di st ric t co ur t su ch th at we can pr op erl y

co nduc t the re qui re d bala nc in g te st —wei gh in g Harri so n’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 th e go ve rn m en t fo r no t req ui rin g co nf ro nt at io n” —o n

ap pe al

.

The go ve rn m en t’s fai lu re to de m on st rat e th at pr od uc in g li ve te st im on y wou ld

b e u n r eas on ab ly or in or di na te ly bu rd en so m e is

, in m y vi ew, fat al by it se lf to i t s

arg ume n t t h a t th ere was go od cau se to ov erco m e Harri so n’s rig ht to co nf ro nt at io n.

Howev er, I al so am no t pe rs ua de d th at th e he ars ay ev id en ce ad m it te d bo re su ffi ci en t

in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty t o jus ti fy th e la ck of l iv e te st im on y

. Pro ba ti on of fic er Brad le y

Co x’s te st im on y was en ti rel y ba se d on hi s rev ie w of th e po li ce rep or t an d arre st

warra nt

, as well as hi s co nv ers at io n wit h Virg in ia fed eral pr ob at io n of fic er Ro be rt
Hag y

. Hag y , in tu rn , ap pa ren tl y ha d rece iv ed hi s in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e in ci de nt fro m

V ir ginia st at e pr ob at io n of fic er Edd ie Bl ev on s. Tho ug h th e po li ce rep or t do es co ntain

fir st -p ers on na rrat iv es of th e in ci de nt

, we ha ve “ 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.” Jo hn so n, 71 0 F.3 d at 78 9 (ci ti ng

Bel l, 78 5 F.2 d at 64 4)

. “ W hi le 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 s s 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.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Bel l,

78 5 F.2 d at 64 4)

. Here, th e of fic ers who wro te th e rep or ts were al so vi ct im s of th e

-9

-a l l e ge d as sa ul t. W he th er th e rel ia bi li ty of a po li ce rep or t is bo ls te red whe n t h e

rep or t’s au th or is al so th e al le ge d vi ct im —o r whe th er it is

, in st ead

, un de rm in ed —i s

no t a q ue st io n t ha t h as a read il y ap pa ren t an swe r.

I al so di sa gr ee th at Harri so n’s own st at em en ts m ean in gf ul ly co rro bo rat ed th e

po li c e r e p o r t a nd arre st warra nt

. Harri so n ad m it te d to se ve ral of th e ke y fact s

de sc rib ed in th e rep or ts

, su ch as “ [ru nn in g] ou t of th e p r o b a ti on bo ard ” an d

co nt in ui ng to ru n eve n afte r th e of fic ers ha d gra bb ed hi s s hi rt. His ch arac te riz at io n

of th e in ci de nt was th at th e of fic ers sl ip pe d an d fel l whi le pu rs ui ng hi m

. Harri so n’s

st at em en ts at t he rev oc at io n h eari ng , ho wev er, d id no t co rro bo rat e th e who le of t he

po li ce rep or t, whi ch in cl ud ed th at Harri so n “ st ru gg le d an d fo ug ht ” wit h th e of fic ers

an d “ co nt in ue d to fig ht wit h [t h e m], pu ll in g away an d swi ng in g at [th em ]. ” The

rep or t al so in cl ud ed th e le ga l co nc lu si on th at Harri so n “ as sa ul te d” th e po li ce of fic ers

as th ey were at te m

pt in g to de ta in hi m

. Thu s, Harri so n di sa gr eed wit h bo th fact ua l

as se rti on s an d le ga l co nc lu si on s co nt ai ne d in th e po li ce rep or t, an d it was th e who le

of th e po li ce rep or t u p o n w h ic h th e di st ric t co ur t rel ie d whe n rev ok in g Harri so n’s

su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d i m po si ng sen te nc e.

The go ve rn m en t fai le d to de m on st rat e t h a t pr od uc in g on e or m or e li ve

wit ne ss es at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng was un reas on ab ly bu rd en so m e or im pr act ic al

, an d

th e ev id en ce of

fere d in it s pl ace la ck ed su ffi ci en t in d ic ia of rel ia bi li ty to warra nt

de nyin g Harri so n th e rig ht to co nf ro nt at io n. As a res ul t, I wou ld co nc lu de th at th e

di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng t h e d i s pu te d ev id en ce. I wou ld

th eref or e no t reac h th e qu es ti on of whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y co nd uc te d th e

req ui red cat eg or ic al an al y si s to de te rm in e if th e al le g e d of fen se was a cri m e of

vi ol en ce u nd er USSG § 4B 1.2 (a).

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

-1 0-