2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-3-2008 

# U SA v . W all s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1554

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . W all s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 567. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/567NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N os . 07- 1554 and 07- 1726

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. G EO RG E D . W A LLS, A ppel l ant

__________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N os . 04- cr - 00001J and 92 -cr -0000 2J) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on J ul y3, 2008 B efore: R E N D E L L , S M ITH , and F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: Sept ember3, 2008)

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________W a lls ’ t e rm o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e c a rr ie d w ith it, a s a m a n d a to ry c o n d itio n , a 1 r equi r ementt hathe “notcomm i tanotherfede r al , s t at e, orl ocal cr i m e” dur i ng the t erm of s u p e rv is io n . (A p p . 2 3 , 2 5 .) A tt he r evoca t i on hear i ng, W al l s s t i pul at ed t o comm i t t i ng the cr i m e of theftby 2 d e c e p tio n /f

o rg e ryin v io latio n o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia la w a n d in v io latio n o f th e ter m s o f

h is s upervi s ed r el eas e. W al l s does notchal l enge thatas pectof the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r evoca t i on o rde r. 2 R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l antG eor ge D . W al l s ( “W al l s ”) appea l s the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derr evoki ng h is te rm s o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se . A f ter c o n d u c tin g a re v o c a tio n h e a rin g p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f

C rim in a l P ro c e d u re 3 2 .1 (b )(2 ), th e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t W a lls v io la te d a c o n d itio n o f

h is re le a s e b y , in tera lia , co m m itt in g th e c rim e s o f se x u a l as sa u lt a n d i n d e c e n ta s s a u l ti n v i o l a t i o n o f P e n n s y l v a n i a s t a t e l a w. 1 O n appea l , W al l s ar gues t hatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n ( 1) conduct i ng the r evoca t i on hear i ng w i t houtgi vi ng hi m an opportuni t yt o confr ontand/ orcr os s exami ne the i ndi vi dual w hom he w as convi ct ed i n s t at e courtof as s aul t i ng and ( 2) fi ndi ng that ther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o pr ove thathe comm i t t ed the cr i m es of as s aul tforw hi ch he w as convi ct ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. Forthe r eas ons 2
s t a t e d b e l o w, we wi l l a f f i r m.A s w e w r i t e s ol el yfort he bene fi tof the part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s and 3 pr ocedur al hi s t or yof thi s cas e, w e conf i ne ourdi s cus s i on t o t he l egal i s s ues pr es ent ed and i ncl ude onl yt hos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o ourdi s pos i t i on. 3 DI S CU S S I ON 3 I. O p p ortun i ty to C on front A d verse W i tness W al l s fi r s tar gues t hathi s r evoca t i on hear i ng w as i nher ent l yfl aw ed, as the D i s tr i ct C our tdi d notr equi r e the i ndi vi dual w hom he w as convi ct ed of a s s aul t i ng t o appea rand tes tify . W a lls a sk s th a t w e o v e rtu rn th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e v o c a tio n o rd e r a n d re m a n d h is c a s e f o r a n e w h e a ri n g . P u rs u a n t to R u le 3 2 .1 (b )( 2 ), a d e f e n d a n t is e n title d to , in tera lia , “a n o p p o rtu n ity t o ap pear, presentevidence, and qu est i on anyadv ers e w i t ness unl es s the cour tdet er m i nes thatthe i nt er es tof

j us t i ce doe s notr equi r e the w i tnes s t o appear . ” Fe d. R. Cr i m. P. 32. 1( b) ( 2) ( C ) ( emphasi s added) . T he A dvi s oryC om m i t t ee N ot es t o R ul e 32. 1 s t at e that s ubs ect i on ( b) ( 2) ( C ) “r ecogni ze[ s ] t hatthe courts houl d appl ya bal anci ng t es tatthe heari ng i t sel f w hen con si deri ng t he rel easee’s assert ed ri gh tt o cross- exam i ne ad verse w i tnes s es . T he courti s t o bal ance the per s on’ s i nt er es ti n t he cons t i tut i onal l yguar ant eed r i ghtt o confr ont at i on agai ns tt he governm ent ’ s good caus e fordeny i ng i t . ” See a l so Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 4 3 F .3 d 3 5 , 4 5 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. R ondeau , 430 F .3 d 4 4 , 4 8 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Taver as , 3 8 0 F . 3 d 5 3 2 , 5 3 6 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); U n itedS ta tes v . M

a rtin , 3 8 2 F .3 d 8 4 0 , 8 4 4 -8 4 5 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T h o u g h W a lls h im se lf acknow l edges t hi s as t he corr ects t andar d, he cont ends thatnei t herthe “i nt er es tofW e d o n o t m o d ify“v ict im ” w ith the term “a ll eg ed , ” a s the W all s’ st ate c ri m inal jury 4 tr ia l r e s u lte d in a c o n v ic tio n . 4 j us t i ce” nor“good ca us e” j us t i fi ed the G overnm ent ’ s fai l ur e t o pr oduce hi s vi ct i m att he 4
re v o c a tio n h e a ri n g . W e revi ew t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s app l i cat i on of the R ule 32. 1(b)( 2)( C ) bal ancing t est f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 4 3 F .3 d 3 5 , 4 6 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). “A bus e of di s cr et i on encompas s es cl ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ngs of fa ctand mi s appl i cat i ons of l aw . ” I

d. I n concl udi ng t hati tw as notnece s s aryforthe i ndi vi dual w hom W al l s w as co n v ict ed o f a ssau lt ing to ap p ea r an d test ifyat his rev o ca ti o n h ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rt r el i ed hea vi l yon t he fa ctt hatt he vi ct i m had al r eadybeen “ exami ned and c r os s - exami ned d u ri n g the s tat e p rose cu ti o n o f th e D ef en d an t. ” (A p p . 3 2 . ) T h o u g h the C o u rt acknow l edged W al l s ’ m anychal l enges t o t he vi ct i m ’ s cr edi bi l i t y , i tnonethel es s “d[i d] not se e th e v a lu e o f

re -e x a m in in g a n o th e r w itn e ss f ro m th e sta te c rim in a l trial, in a d d iti o n to the D efe ndant . ” ( A pp. 32- 33. ) T he C our texpl ai ned: [T]he D efe ndantus es as s uppor tforhi s [cr edi bi l i t y ] ar gum ent [s ] por t i ons of the s t at e tr i al t r ans cr i ptfr om ot herdul ys w orn and compet entw i tnes s es w ho al r eadyt es t i fi ed, butw oul d have the C our tpr es i de overa s econd exam i nati on , i n a sup ervi sed rel ease proceed i ng , of a c om plai ning w i t ness fr om t he s t at e cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on. T o s i ngl e outthe D efe ndantand the compl ai ni ng w i t nes s fr om t he s t at e cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on forpurpos es of h a v i n g t h i s Co u r te n g a g e i n a n e x e r c i s e o f j u d g i n g th e c r e d i b i l i t yo f th e two a p p e a rs to b e a s e le c tiv e re c o g n itio n o f th e c re d ib ility o f

th e tr ia l w itn e s s e s . (A p p . 3 3 ).W a lls h im s e lf a c k n o w le d g e s th is f

a c t in h is b ri e f. ( See A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 38 ( “The 5 d istri ct co u rtb ase d it s rev o ca ti o n o f M r. W all s’ su p erv ised release u p o n h is st ate c o u rt c o n v ic tio n s f

o r i n d e c e n t a s s a u lt a n d s e x u a l a s s a u lt.” ).) T h e G o v e r n m e n ti n t r o d u c e d a t r a n s c r i p to f th e v i c t i m ’ s s w o r n s t a t e c o u r tt e s t i m o n y. 6 5 In lig h t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s s tate d re a so n in g , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t ita b u se d its di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o r equi r e W al l s ’ vi ct i m t o appea rand t es t i fyathi s r evoca t i on h e a rin g . F u rth e r, as th e D istric t C o u rt e x p licitlysta ted in its M e m o ra n d u m O p in io n , it s d e c isio n to re v o k e W a lls’ su p e rv ise d re lea se w a s “ b a se d u p o n th e e v id e n c e o f th e [ sta te cour t ] convi ct i ons ” ( A pp. 30) , and the C our taddr es s ed the s t at e cr i m i nal tr i al t es t i m ony 5 of W al l s ’ vi ct i m onl y“fort he s ake of compl et enes s ” ( i d. ). T h u s, e v e n w e re w e to 6 det erm i ne thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n perm i t t i ng W al l s ’ r evoca t i on hear i ng t o pr ocee d w i t houtt he t es t i m onyof hi s vi ct i m — w hi ch w e do not

— t he err or w oul d onl ybe r ever s i bl e i f the al t ernat e bas i s forthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s hol di ng ( i . e. , the evidence o f t he st at e cou rtcon vict i on s) cou l d n ot s ust ai n the r evo cat i on of W al l s’ s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . W e tu rn n e x t to th a t p re c is e q u e s tio n . I I . Suff i ci ency of t he E vi dence A s hi s s econd i s s ue on appe al , W al l s chal l enges the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence under l y i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o r evoke hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he D i s t r i ct C our tfound thatthe ce r t i fi ed copyof W al l s ’ s t at e courtconvi ct i ons fors exual as s aul tand i ndece ntas s aul tw as s uffi ci entevi dence t o demonstr at e, bya pr eponder ance of theA s upervi s ed r el eas e vi ol at i on m us tbe pr oven bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , not 7 b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (e )(3 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. D ees , 467 F. 3d 847, 854- 55 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . A s w e expl ai ned i n U n itedS ta tes v . P o e lln itz , 372 F. 3d 562, 566 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ): A courtcan r evoke pr obat i on w hen i ti s r eas onabl ys at i s fi ed thatthe pr obat i on condi t i ons have be en vi ol at ed, w i t houtthe governm entbei ng r equi r ed t o pr es entpr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe def endant comm i t t ed the al l eged a ct s . I n otherw or ds , t o r evoke pr obat i on i ti s not nece s s aryt hatt he pr obat i onerbe adj udged gui l t yof a c r i m e, butonl ythat the co urtbe reasonab l ysat i sfi ed thathe h as vi olat ed o ne o f t he co nd i t i on s. (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). B ecause W al l s’ chall eng e i s “ess enti al l yl egal i n n ature, ” ou r r eview i s de novo . 8 P o e lln itz , 3 7 2 F .3 d a t 5 6 5 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). 6 evi dence , t hatW al l s vi ol at ed a t erm of hi s r el eas e bycomm i t t i ng tw o s t at e cr i m es . ( A pp.

7 2 5 -30 . ) W all s co n tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rtsh o u ld n o t hav e c o n side red h is st ate c o u rt convi ct i ons as evi dence t hathe vi ol at ed hi s r el eas e condi t i ons . Speci fi cal l y , W al l s ar gues that , beca us e hi s convi ct i ons w er e the r es ul tof a j uryver di ct , and notan admi s s i on of gui l t , t hey“do[] notpr ove thata cr i m e w as actual l y com m i t t ed . ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 39 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . ) A ccor di ng t o W al l s , the “c ont i nual m ai nt enanc e of hi s i nnocenc e al one make [s i c] t he convi ct i ons an i nadequa t e bas i s upon w hi ch t o r evoke hi s s upervi s ed re lea se .” (A p p e llan t’s B r. 4 0 .) In su p p o rt o f th is c o n ten tio n , W a lls c ites o n lyo n e c a se : U n itedS ta tes v . P o e lln itz , 3 7 2 F . 3 d 5 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 8 I n P o e lln itz , t he def

endantw as s ubj ectt o t he s ame supe r vi s ed r el eas e condi t i on as W al l s , pr ohi bi t i ng hi m fr om comm i t t i ng anycr i m es “fe der al , s t at e, orl ocal ” dur i ng the7

te rm o f h is re le a s e . I

d. at564. Pr i ort o t he expi r at i on of hi s t erm , Poel l ni t z w as arr es t ed and cha r ged w i t h a numberof s t at e cr i m es t o w hi ch he e ventual l ypl eade d n o lo
con t end ere . I

d. R el y i ng on hi s s t at e courtconvi ct i ons , the D i s t r i ctC our tr evoked Poel l ni t z’ s s upervi s ed r el eas e, and Poel l ni t z appe al ed. U pon r evi ew , w e hel d t hat P oell nit z’s no l o co ntendere pl ea, w i t houtm or e, w as i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t hathe v io late d a c o n d iti o n o f

h is s u p e rv ise d re lea se . W e e x p lain e d th a t, un d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia law , “[ i]n p lea d in g n o lo c o n ten d e re ; th e d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t ad m it h is g u ilt , b u t m e re ly cons ent s t o bei ng puni s hed as i f he w er e gui l t y , ” id
. at568 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; acc or di ngl y , w e conc l uded, “a n o lo p lea . . . h a s n o e v id e n tiary va lu e in as s es s i ng w hethert he def endantcomm i t t ed a c r i m e” i d. a t 5 6 7 . W al l s t akes ourdi s cus s i on of no l o co ntendere pl eas i n P o e lln itza n d se e k s to ext end i tt o t he fa ct s of hi s cas e. W al l s ar gues that , beca us e hi s convi ct i ons w er e the re su lt o f a ju ryv e rd ict “ to w h ich [ h e ] d id n o t ac q u ies c e ” (A p p e llan t’s B r. 3 8 ), th e re e x ists n o f a c tu a l a d m is s io n o f

g u ilt, a n d th u s , “ P o e lln itz. . . d ic ta te s th a t th e ju ry’s v e rd ic t . . . ca n n o t be c o n side red ev iden ce o f [ h is] g u il t of the u n d erly ing co n d u ct” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. 3 9 ). U n f o rt u n a te ly f

o r W a lls , P o e lln itzd icta tes n o su c h c o n c lu sio n a n d , in f a c t, su p p o rts the oppos i t e. T o be cl ear , att he out s etof ouropi ni on i n P o e lln itz , w e r ecogni zed that“[i ] n t he nor m al cour s e, one mi ghtexpec tt hati f the courtfi nds [thatthe] defe ndantw as convi ct ed o f a crim e, th e c o u rtm ayau tom ati ca ll yrev o k e re lease b ase d o n the d ef en d an t’ sO n J une 18, 2004, W al l s w as gr ant ed a ne w tr i al byor derof the C our tof C om m on 9 Pl eas of A l l eghenyC ount ybas ed on hi s cl ai m thathe had notbeen gi ven a f ai rtr i al due to a h e a ri n g im p a ir m e n t th a t h a d n o t a d e q u a te ly b e e n a c c o m m o d a te d b yth e tr ia l c o u rt . 8 comm i s s i on of the under l y i ng offe ns e[, butt ] hati s nots o w hen i tcomes t o t he pecul i ar l egal ef f ect of the pl ea of no l o co ntendere . ” Thus, ourhol di ng i n P o e lln itzw as bas ed on the “pe cul i ar ” natur e of a no l o co ntendere pl ea, w hi ch i s fundament al l ydi ffe r entthan a g u ilty v e rd ic t r e n d e re d u p o n th e c o n c lu s io n o f a tr ia l b yju ry. U l t i m at el y , “[w ]hatm at t ers i s w hether[t he d efen dan t ] com m i t t ed [a ] cr i m e as a m at t erof fa ct . ” I

d. at567. A nd w hi l e a pl ea of no l o co ntendere i s notevi dence of the fac tthatthe pl eade ractual l ycomm i t t ed a c r i m e, a j uryver di ctof gui l t yi s i t s el f a f i ndi ng of fa ct . A s s t at ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , “[n] o att orneyorcour tcan di s put e thati ti s the funct i on of the j ur yt o r es ol ve fa ctual i s s ues attr i al and the j uryi n s t at e courtfound [W al l s ] gui l t yof s exual as s aul tand i ndece ntas s aul tus i ng the s t andar d of pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . . . . T he j ur yfi ndi ng [thatW al l s w as ] gui l t yof both cr i m es es t abl i s hes that [W all s] co m m itted th e o ff en ses o f se x u al assa u ltan d ind ec en t assau lt . ” (A p p . 2 7 . ) W e agr ee. T he s t andar d of pr oof empl oy ed bythe j uryi n convi ct i ng W al l s of s exual and i ndece ntas s aul ti s s i gni fi cant l yhi gherthan the s t andar d of pr oof nec es s aryt o s us t ai n t he r evoca t i on of hi s r el eas e. A ccor di ngl y , evi dence of W al l s ’ convi ct i ons i s m or e than s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r i n th is c a s e . T he fa ctt hatW al l s i s pur s ui ng a col l at er al appea l of hi s convi ct i ons does not change ourconcl us i on. T he ca s e of R obers on v. C onnect i cut , 5 0 1 F . 2 d 3 0 5 (2d C ir . 9T h e ru li n g w as a p p ea led, an d o n N o v em b er 3 , 2 0 0 5 , the P en n sy lvan ia S u p erior C o u rt

rever sed t he d eci si on and t he o rderfor a new tri al w as vacated. W al l s now pu rs ues a c o lla te ra l a tta c k u p o n h is s ta te c o n v ic tio n s b a s e d o n in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. 9 1974) , i s i ns t ruct i ve. I n t hatcas e, t he Second Ci r cui tC our tof A ppeal s hel d t hatevi dence of a c r i m i nal convi ct i on i s s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h, bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hat th e d e f e n d a n t v io la te d th e te rm s o f h is p ro b a tio n e v e n in lig h t o f a p e n d in g d ir e c t a p p e a l. I n doi ng s o, t he C our tr eas oned: [ a ] c rim in a l co n v ictio n a f ter a trial a t w h ich th e p ro b a tio n e r w a s e n tit led to al l t he pr ot ect i ons aff

or ded a c r i m i nal defe ndanti ncl udi ng form al rul es of evi dence , t he r i ghtt o as s i gned couns el i f i ndi gent , and the r equi r ementthat the s tat e e stab li sh g u il tyb ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t certai n lyaf fo rds a m o re th a n su f f icie n t b a sis f

o r re v o c a tio n o f

p ro b a tio n , ev e n if

th a t co n v ictio n is s t i l l a wa i t i n g a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w. I d. a t 3 0 8 ; se e a lso U

n itedS ta tes v . S

p ra g lin , 418 F. 3d 479 ( 5th C i r . 2005) ( i nvol vi ng re v o c a tio n o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. F l em i ng , 9 F. 3d 1253 ( 7th C i r . 1993) ( s ame) . W e fi nd t he Second Ci r cui t ’ s r eas oni ng t o be per s uas i ve and thus appl yi ther e. A s di d t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w e “s ee[ ] no r eas on t o t r eatconvi ct i ons thatar e s ubj ect t o a pendi ng di r ectappea l di ffe r ent l ythan convi ct i ons thatar e s ubj ectt o a col l at er al at t ack w hen det erm i ni ng i f a c onvi ct i on can be a bas i s t o r evoke a t erm of s upervi s ed rel ease. ” (A pp . 30 . ) Th us, even i n li gh tof h i s col l at eral at t ack, w e con cl ud e t hat W al l s’ sta te c o u rt c o n v ictio n s w e re su f f icie n t to ju stif

yth e D istric t C o u rt’s r e v o c a tio n o f h is s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m .10 I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e w i l l A FFIRM the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt.