UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

DEREK FIELDS, 

 PETITIONER, 

 VS. 

JULIE LAWSON, 

 RESPONDENT. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1844-RLM

(ARISING OUT OF: 3:11-CR-149-RLM)

OPINION and ORDER 

 Derek Fields filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 

2241 while being held at the St. Joseph County Jail pending his supervised 

release revocation hearing. Mr. Fields originally pleaded guilty to unlawful 

possession of a firearm and was sentenced to time served and a two-year 

supervised release term. A mandatory supervised release condition prohibits 

defendants from committing another federal, state, or local crime during the 

term of supervision. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). On March 4, 2014, near the end of 

his supervised release term, Mr. Fields was charged with aggravated battery in 

St. Joseph Superior Court. As a result, this court found reason to believe Mr. 

Fields had violated a supervised release condition by committing another crime 

and issued a warrant for his arrest. He was arrested May 30, and an initial 

hearing was held the same day. The defendant moved to continue the 

preliminary hearing held a few days later on June 4. The parties reconvened on 

the 10th, presented evidence and argument, and the court found sufficient 
-2- 

probable cause to believe Mr. Fields had violated a condition of his supervised 

release. At the detention hearing the next day, the court found that Mr. Fields 

should be held without bond pending further proceedings. A final hearing on 

the revocation of Mr. Fields’ supervised release term was held on September 

29. After evidence and argument, the court revoked Mr. Fields’s supervised 

release and sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment followed by a one year 

term of supervised release. 

 In his § 2241 petition, Mr. Fields says that he isn’t challenging his 

conviction or sentence. He argues the court unlawfully allowed his detention so 

the U.S. Marshals could investigate and indict him and the court allowed the 

government to admit video footage of a witness’s testimony at the detention 

hearing, which denied his right to confront and cross-examine the witness. His 

arguments focus on his detention before the supervised release revocation 

hearing and evidence presented at his detention hearing. Typically a defendant 

will seek review of a magistrate judge’s detention order from the district court, 

18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), or appeal the district court’s detention decision to the 

court of appeals, 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). Because Mr. Fields filed his challenge 

under § 2241, his petition wasn’t initially connected to his criminal case. Upon 

discovery that Mr. Fields had a related criminal case, the § 2241 petition was 

reassigned to the judge who presided over those proceedings. Unfortunately, 

the connection was made after Mr. Fields’ supervised release revocation 
-3- 

hearing, so the period of detention had been resolved. Nonetheless, the court 

will briefly discuss Mr. Fields’ arguments. 

 First, Mr. Fields argues that on August 13, the court continued his 

supervised release revocation hearing until October 20 to give the U.S. 

Marshals time to investigate and indict him. After the June 11 evidentiary 

detention hearing, the Magistrate Judge ordered Mr. Fields detained pending 

further proceedings. Other than his accusations about the court’s motivations, 

he doesn’t specifically challenge the detention order. Mr. Fields points to a date 

two months later and says he was unlawfully detained. He is mistaken about 

the circumstances surrounding the August 14 continuance. Mr. Fields’s 

supervised release revocation hearing was initially set for July 17, but at that 

hearing he made an oral motion, which the court granted, to continue the 

hearing to let him hire his own lawyer. The court held a status conference on 

August 6, in which the supervised release revocation hearing was rescheduled 

for August 20. The new counsel, unsurprisingly, then moved for a continuance. 

On August 14, the court held a hearing on that motion and granted Mr. 

Fields’s motion to continue the supervised release revocation hearing to 

October 24.1 The court moved the hearing to October because Mr. Fields asked 

him to. 

 Second, Mr. Fields claims the court allowed the government to admit 

video footage of a witness’s testimony at the detention hearing, denying him his 

 

1 The hearing was ultimately held on September 29. 
-4- 

right to confront and cross-examine the witness. On June 10 and 11, the court 

held the preliminary hearing to decide whether probable cause existed on the 

petition alleging the violation of the terms of supervised release and to address 

the government’s motion for detention. During the hearings, the government 

entered three videos into evidence, with no objection from Mr. Fields. Those 

videos contained footage of police interviews of the victim at the crime scene 

and in the hospital. In all criminal prosecutions, the Sixth Amendment requires 

the accused to have the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. 

U.S. CONST. amend. VI. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) outlines the required procedure for 

detention hearings, and in addition to the right to counsel and the opportunity 

to testify, to present witnesses, and to present information, a person may 

“cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing.” “The rules concerning 

admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and 

consideration of information” at the detention hearing. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). 

These statutory procedures adequately protect the liberty interest at stake at 

detention hearings. United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 767 (7th Cir. 1985). 

Although the right to confront witnesses is required to ensure due process at a 

trial, that right isn’t necessary in all criminal proceedings. Id. For example, the 

confrontation clause doesn’t apply at sentencing hearings. United States v. 

Isom, 635 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 2011). The Sixth Amendment right to 

confront and cross-examine witnesses doesn’t apply at supervised release 

revocation hearings, but the Fifth Amendment right of confrontation applies, 
-5- 

unless the hearsay is reliable. United States v. Mosley, 759 F.3d 664, 667 (7th 

Cir. 2014); United States v. Jordan, 765 F.3d 785, 787-788 (7th Cir. 2014). A 

supervised release revocation hearing is more akin to a trial than a sentencing. 

“The defendant is not entitled to all of the protections of a criminal trial, but 

the stakes [of a supervised release revocation hearing] may be months or even 

years in prison. A court considering [whether to require the witness to appear 

under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C)] cannot lose sight of 

those stakes . . . .” United States v. Jordan, 765 F.3d at 788. At one end of the 

spectrum of criminal proceedings is a trial, with a permanent liberty interest at 

stake. At the other end of the spectrum is a detention hearing, with a 

temporary liberty interest at stake. On the trial end of the continuum lies a 

supervised release revocation hearing with similarly permanent liberty interests 

at stake. But a sentencing hearing lies at the end of the continuum near a 

detention hearing. A defendant doesn’t have the right to confront witnesses at a 

sentencing hearing, United States v. Isom, 635 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 2011), 

and he also doesn’t have the right to confront witnesses at a detention hearing. 

See United States v. Hernandez, 778 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1219-1220 (D.N.M. 

2011) (confrontation clause doesn’t apply to detention hearings). The use of 

video testimony at Mr. Fields’s detention hearing didn’t violate his right to 

confront and cross-examine a witness. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the court DISMISSES the petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 
-6- 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: December 22, 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

 Judge 

 United States District Court