## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09
- 1926 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C HRISTO PH ER R. T H OM PS ON, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 3:00- cr-50002- 1

—Philip G. Re inha rd, Judge . A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 9, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 19, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Chri sto pher Thom pson vi ol ate d the c ondit i on s of hi s s upervi sed r el eas e in l ate Februar y 2 009, and the dist ri ct c ourthel d a r ev oc at i on he ar i ngi n Mar cho ftha t y ea r . Rul e 32
. 1(b) ( 2) o fthe Feder alRule s o fCri m i nalPro cedure est abl i shes the pr ocedures that apply i n a s up er vi sed- re l eas e r evo cati on hear i ng, and the j ud ge fol l owed thes e pr oce du re s

— w i th o ne e xc ept i o n. Al th o ug h Th o m pso n, hi s at to r ne y, a nd2 N o. 09
- 1926 the pr ose cutorwere pres en t in the federa lco urtho use i n Rockfor d, I l l i noi s, the j ud ge parti ci pated vi a vi d eoconfer ence fro m Key W est, Fl or i da. Thom pson’ s a pp eal re qu ire s us to confro nt a questi on o ffi rs t i m pressi on f orfe d er alco urts o fappeal s: wh etherhol ding a su per vi se d- r el ea se r ev o cati o n h ea r i ngb y v i deo co nfer ence vi ol ate s Rul e 3 2. 1(b) ( 2) . W e ho l d that i t doe s. Acco r di ng l y, we va ca te Tho m pso n’ s te r m o fr ei m pr i so nm ent.
I . B a c kg r o und I n No v e mbe r a nd De c e mbe r 1 9 9 9 , Ch r i s t o ph e r T ho mpson robbed two banks near Rockf or d, I l l i noi s. H e pl eaded g ui l tya nd was s en te nc ed to 1 02 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t and 5 years ’ superv i sed r el eas e. A fterse rv i ng hi s pri son te r m , he was r el ea se d o n s upe r vi si o n; wi th i n months he w as caught usi ng i l l ega ld rugs . S up er vi sed r el eas e was re vok ed and he w as re turned t o prison f orsi x m onths. N o t l o ng afte r co m pl et i ng th i s br i ef te r m of r ei m pr i so nm en t, T h om p so n w as arr e s t e d ag ain

— thi s t i m e for dri vi ng under the i nfl uence o fal cohol, o perat i ng an unin su re d m oto r vehi cl e, dri vi ng with a s uspend ed l i cense, speedi ng, and i m properl ane usa ge. H e a l so failed to no ti fy hi s probati on o ffi cero fhi s a rr estwit h in 72 ho ur s, a s r equi r ed byhi s condi ti o ns o fr el ea se . The gov er nm ent a gain so ught t o re vok e s up er vi sed r el eas e an d r etur n Th o m pso n t o pr i so n. On M ar ch 18, 20 09, the dist ri ct c ourthel d an i nitial he a r i ng, a pp o i nt e d a f e de r a lde fe nd e r t o r e pr e s e ntT ho mpson, and schedul ed a r evo cati on hea ring f or M ar ch 25.N o. 09
- 1926 3

T he r eco rd doe s no ti ndi c at e whethe r the vi deoc onfer en c i ng 1 tech no log y p e rm itted the in d iv id u als in the R ock ford cou rtho u se to see th e jud g e or w he the r tho se ind iv id u als cou ld on ly hear th e ju dg e. For purp oses ofdisc uss ion, w e as sum e that all parti es could se e and hear one another
. A l though a l lpart i es w er e pr ese nt in the Rock f or d court

h ou se f orthi s ini ti alhear i ng, the j ud ge parti ci pated by vi deoconfer en ce fro m Key W est, Fl or i da. A t the r evo cati on hearing a w eekl ate r, the j ud ge aga i n appeare d by vi deoconfer ence fro m Key W est ; e ver yone el se w as a s s e mbl e d in the j ud g e’ s c o ur t r o o m i n Ro c k f o r d. T ho mpson ’s cou ns el obj ecte d , con ten d ing th at th is p roced ure vi ol ate d Ru l e 3 2. 1. The di str i ct c ourto verrule d the o bj ecti on, co m m enti ng: The cour t wil lst ate f orthe re cor d th at , ofco urse , eve rybody i s in the cour t i n Rockfor d except f orm e. I ’m i n t h e c ou rthou se in K ey W est, Fl orida. W e’re do i ngthi s byv i deo conferenc i ng . Ic anb o ths ee a nd hearever ybo dy i n the cour thouse i n Rockfor d and can c o mpr e he nd e v e r y thingtha th a s t r a ns pi r e d. T he cou rt b eli eves th at vide o c onferen cing for a sup ervi se d r el ea se he ar i ngm eets the s ta nda r ds o fdue p ro c es s, th at th er e’s n o c as e law th at w ou ld p ro h ibitit norany rul e o r sta tute that w oul d prohibi t i t under th e c irc u m st an c es of th e s u p er vis ed rele as e. . . . [I]t is th e c ou rt ’s ru lin g t h at w e c a n p ro c ee d , an d I w ill o ve r r ul e th e defen dan t’ s o bj ec ti o n. 1 Thom pson adm i tte d the al l ega ti ons except forth e drunkdri vi ng charg e, and the dist ri ct c ourthear d stat em ents4 N o. 09
- 1926

The gove rn m en tc onfes s es e rr or, c onc edi ng thatho l di ng 2 Tho m pson’ s revocati on heari ng by videoconfer ence v iol ated R ule 32. 1; it s brief do es not add res s Tho m pson’ s alt ernat ive duepro ce ss argum ent. Because ofthi s conces si on, w e appo int ed an am i c us t o de fen d the d is t ri c tc our t ’ s pr oc edur e. W e than k Bar ry Leve ns t am , Andre w W ei s s m an n, an d Sh ar m i l a S oho ni ofJ en ne r & Blo c k f or abl y di s c har gi ng thi s r es pons ibi l i t y. from cou ns el for both p arties and from Th om p son him self. Altho ug h the pr o ba ti o n o ffi cerr ec o m m en ded ei g ht m onths’ r ei m pri sonm en t, the j ud ge re vok ed supervi sed r el ea se a nd i m po se d a te r m oft wel ve months i n pr i so n a nd o ne y e a r o fs up e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . T ho mps o n a pp eal e d, chal l engi ng the ju d ge’ s deci si on t o conduct the re voca ti on hea ring byvi deoconfer ence.
I I . Discussi on The i ssue on a pp eal

— w hetherthe use o fvid eoconfer enci ng to co nd uct a supervi sed- relea se re voca ti on he aring viol ates th e Fed eral Ru les ofCrim inal Proced ure oral ternati vel y, the Fi fth A m endm ent’ s Due Pro cess Clause

— i s a questi on o fl aw tha t w e revi ew de nov o. 2 U nited Sta tes v. C la rk, 538 F.3d 803 , 8 0 8 ( 7 t h Cir. 2008). Rule 32. 1 g ove rns supervi sed- re l eas e r evo cati on hea rings an d p ro vid es in re lev an t p ar t: U n les s w aiv ed by th e p er so n, th e c ou rt m u st h old th e re vo c at ion h ea rin g w ith ina re as on ab le t im e in th e di str i ct hav i ng j uri sdic ti on. The per son i s e nti tl ed to . . . a n o p p or tuni ty to appear, pre sent evi dence, an d qu estion an y ad verse w itn ess u nless th e cou rtN o. 09
- 1926 5

The gove rn m en tal s o ba s es i t s ar gum en ti n pa rtonthe 3 a p p lic a tio n o f R u le 43 to re v o ca tio n p ro ce ed in g s. deter m i nes that the i nter esto fj usti ce doe s no t re quir e the witnes s t o appear[ , ]
. . . and an o pp or tuni ty to m ake a st atem ent a nd pre sent any info rm ati on i n mi ti g at i o n. F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32 .1(b )(2) . Ra th er th an co m m en c in g h is anal ysi s w i th the l anguage o fthi s r ule , Thom pson l oo ks fi rs t t o Rule 43, wh i ch pro vid es that a defendant “m ust be pr ese nt” a t “ sente nci ng. ” F ED . R. C RIM . P. 43(a)(3)
. 3 Three ci rcui ts have hel d that Rule 43’ s “ prese nce” r equi re m en t com m an d s th at all p ar tie s an d th e j u d ge b e p h ys ical l y pr ese nt i n the sam e co urtr oo m f orse ntenci ng. See Un i t e d S t a t e s v . To r r e s - P a l ma , 29 0 F
. 3d 1244, 12 47- 48 ( 10th Cir
. 20 02) ( re m anding f orr ese ntenci ng wh er e j ud ge ap p ea re d v i a vid eo c on fer en c e); U nite d State s v. Law re nce, 248 F. 3d 300, 3 05 (4th Cir
. 20 01) ( vacat i ng se ntence w h e re d efe n d an t a p p ea re d via vid eo c on fer en c e); U nited Sta tes v . N a v a r ro , 16 9 F
. 3d 228, 23 8- 39 ( 5th Ci r. 19 99) ( vacat i ng se ntence w here j ud ge ap peare d vi a vi deocon ferenc e). Thom pson ar gues that a s up er vi sed- release r evo cati on hear i ng atwh i ch the j ud ge m ay i m pose a p ri son ter m i s ind ist i ngui shabl e fro m an ini ti alse ntenci ng pro ceedi ng. A ccor dingl y, he r eas ons, Rule 43 appli es to r ev o ca ti o n h ea r i ng s, a nd beca us e Rul e 43 r equi r es the defen dan t’ s phy si cal pr es en ce b efo r e th e j udg e, the dist ri ct c ourtwas p ro h ibi ted fro m co nd ucti ng the r evo ca ti o n h ea r i ngb y v i deo co nfer en ce . Thi s argu m en t6 N o. 09
- 1926

m isses the m ark. T he prob lem i s not w ith Th om p son ’s c on te n ti on that Rul e 4 3 r equi re s the physi calpre sence of al lpart i ci pa n ts in the sa m e co urtr oo m ; he m ay w el lbe ri ght that i t doe s, al though we need notdeci de to day w h et h er to j oin th e c on se n su s a m on g t h e c irc u it s on th is poi nt. Instea d, the flaw in T hom pson’ s a rgum ent i s i ts ass um pti on that Rul e 4 3 a pp l i es to re voca ti on hea rings. By i ts own te rm s, Rule 43 go ver ns o nl y “ ( 1) the i ni tial ap p earan ce, the initi al arraignm en t, an d th e p lea; (2) every tr i alst age , i ncl ud i ng j ury i m panel m ent a nd the re turn o f the v er dic t; an d (3) se ntenci ng. ” I fRule 43 were m eant to apply to re voca ti on hea rings, i t would say so expli ci tl y. I nd eed , the A dvis or y Com m i tte e Notes to Rule 43 expla i n that the rule does notapply to “hea rings o n m oti ons m ad e . . . aftertr i al
. ” F ED . R. C RIM . P. 43 ad visory com m i tte e’ s no te 1. A s up er vi sed- re l eas e r evo cati on h ea rin g is o b vio u sly a p os tt ria l p ro c ee d in g. N or, a s T ho mpson a sse rt s, i s the r evo cati on o fsuperv i sed r el ea se the pr ec i se equi va l en t o f a se nt en cinghe ar i ng ; the r i g ht s ats ta k e i n e ac h pr o ce edinga r e di st i ng ui sh ab l e. The Suprem e Cour t l ong ago not ed that “[ r] evo cati on depri ves an i nd ivid u a l, n ot of th e absolu te liberty to w hich every ci ti zen i s e n titl ed, but onl y o fthe condi ti onall iber ty p ro p er ly d ep en d en t o n ob se rv an c e o f sp ec ial p a r ole r e s t r i c t i ons. ” M o rrissey v. B rew er, 408 U
. S. 471, 480 (1972 ). Because a revo cati on hea ring i s no t par t o fa cri m i nal pros ecuti on, a defe nd ant a t a r evo cati on hea ring i s no t owed the “fullpanopl y of rights” du e a defendant at se n te n c in g. Id. A l though the r evo cati on hea ring i s s om eti m es r efer r ed to c o l l o qui al l y a s a “r es en te nc i ng, ” th e contr ol l i ng st atute does notuse that ter m ; i nste ad , 18N o. 09
- 1926 7 U
. S. C. § 3 583( e) ( 3) autho ri zes the cour t, o nce a vi olat ion ofsuperv i sed r el eas e i s pro ven, to “r evo ke a t er m o f su p er vis ed rele a s e , an d req u ire th e d efe n d an t t o s er ve in pri son al lo r part ofthe ter m o fsupervi sed r el eas e a uthor i z e d b y s t a tu t e . ” B y i t s t e r ms

— an d ba se d on th e w ellest abl i shed diffe rence in the proce du ra lsco pe ofthes e proc eedi ngs

— Ru l e 4 3 i s i na pp l i c ab l e t o s up e r v i s e dre lea se rev oc at ion h ea rin gs . Tho m pso n a l so o ffer s ana l te r na ti ve ar g um en t gr ou n d ed in t h e te x t o f R u le 3 2.1

— th e p lac e w h er e h is anal ysi s s houl d have st ar ted. Recal lthatRule 32
. 1( b) ( 2) p rovide s tha t before revoking a d efend an t’s sup ervi sed r elea se, the cour t m ust g i ve the defendant “an op p or tu n ity to ap p ea r” fo r p u rp os es of p re se n tin g e viden ce , que st i o ni ngwi tn es se s, a r g ui ngi n mi ti g at i o n, a nd mak i ng a s t a t e men t t o the c o ur t . Th o mps o n a r g ue s t hat the “ appearance ” m an dated by Rule 32. 1( b) ( 2) r equi re s th e d efe n d an t a n d t h e jud ge to be p h ys ica lly p re se n t in t h e sa m e c ou rt ro om . H is c on te n tio n is co rre c t; th is re adingo fthe rul e i s co nsi ste nt w ith the m eani ng o f “a p p ea r” a s u se d in t h is c on te x t a s w ell as th e t ra d iti onalundersta nd i ng o fan a ccused pers on’ s “ appearance ” bef or e a co urt em pow er ed to depri ve hi m o fhi s l iber ty. M or e s peci fi cally , Rule 32
. 1( b) ( 2) pro vi des thatpri or to rev oc at ion of su p er vis ed rele as e, a d efe n d an t is
“ e nt i t l e d to” a n “ o ppo r tu ni tyt o a ppea r, ” to “ pr es en t ev i den ce [ ] and que st i o n a ny a dve r se wi tn es s, ” an d to “m ak e a st at em en t a n d p re se n t a n y in f o r m at ion in m i ti gat i on. ” F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32.1(b)( 2) ( em p ha sis add ed ). A s use d i n thi s con te x t, the w or d “appear” m eans “to8 N o. 09
- 1926
com e for m al l y b ef or e a n author i tat i ve body. ” W EBS TER’ S T HI RD N EW I NTERNATI ONA L D ICTIO NA RY 10 3 (1 98 1). B lack’s Law D i ct i onary fur th erde fi ne s “a ppea r an ce ” as “ [ a] c o m i ng i nto cour t a s a party o r i nter est ed pe rson, o r as a l aw yer on be hal fo fa partyo r i nter est ed p er son. ” B LA CK ’ S L AW D ICTIO NA RY 1 1 3 ( 9 the d
. 2 0 0 9 )
. T h e s e d e fi n i ti o ns su gg es t t h at th e “ ap p ea ra n c e” req u ire d by th is ru le occur s o nl y i f the defe nd ant com es i nto the physi cal

— not vi rtual

— prese nce o fthe j ud ge. M or eov er, a defe nd ant’ s “ opportunity to appear” und er thi s r ule exi sts not in is ol ati on but i n conj uncti on with hi s r i ght t o “pres ent e vi dence, ” to “q uesti on a ny adver se wi tn es s, ” an d t o “ m ak e a st at em en t a nd pr es en t an y i nfo rm ati on in m i ti gat i on. ” A d efendan t’s appearance i n cour t i s the m eans by w hi ch he e ffectuat es the o ther rights c o n ferred by the ru le; ap p earing before th e cou rt al l ows the defendant to pl ead hi s ca se personallyt o the j ud ge w ho wil ldeci de w hether t o re vok e s up er vi sed re lea se an d ret u rn h im to p r i s o n . T h is is p ar tic u lar ly tr ue i n l i ght o fthe d efe n dant’s r i ght t o “m ake a sta tem ent a nd pre sent any info rm ati on in m i tig atio n. ” F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32
. 1(b) ( 2) ( E)
. Thi s su bs ect i o n gua r an te es a r i g ht o fa ll o cut i o n b efo r e r ev o ca ti o n; we ha ve he l d tha t th e rig h t o f alloc u tio n ata re vo c at ion h ea rin g is e ss en tia lly the s ame a s th e r i g hto fa l l o cut i o n a t se nt en cing gu ar an te ed by R u le 3 2(i)(4 )(A )(ii). See U nited Sta tes v. P itre, 50 4 F
. 3d 65 7, 6 62 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( hold in gtha t th e r i g ht to a l l o c u t i o n i n R u l e 3 2
. 1 “ i s n o ts u b s t a n t i v e l y d i ffe r en t th an th e r igh t [t o a lloc u tio n ] cr ea te d by R u le 3 2” ). Th is com m on- l aw r i ght, co difi ed i n both rul es, ens u re s that th e d efe n d an t h as th e o p p or tu n ity to “p er so n allyN o. 09
- 1926 9 ad d re ss th e c ou rt ” b efo re p u n is h m e n t is im p os ed
. U nited Sta tes v. B a rnes , 948 F. 2d 325, 328 (7th Cir
. 19 91)
. Thi s f aceto- f ace m eet i ng be tw een the defen dant and the j ud ge per m i ts the j udg e to e xpe r i en ce “ th o se i m pr es si o ns gle an ed th ro u gh
. . . an y p er so n al c o n fro n ta tio n in w hi ch one att em pts to as ses s the cr edibi l i ty orto evaluate the t rue m or alfibero fano ther
. ” D e l Pia no v. U nited Sta tes , 5 75 F. 2d 10 66 , 10 69 ( 3d Ci r . 19 78 ) ( di sc us sing allo c u tio n ); see a lso G reen v. U nited Sta tes , 36 5 U.S
. 30 1, 30 4 (1961 ) ( “The m ostper suasi ve counselm ay not be ab le to speak f ora defe nd ant a s the defendant m i ght, with h alt in g e loq u en c e, sp ea k for h im se lf.”). W ith ou t t h is per so na li nt er ac ti o n b etwee n the j udg e an d the defen dan t

— w h ich vi deoconfer encing cannot fully r epl i cate

— th e f or ce o fthe othe r ri ghts guaran te ed by Rule 32. 1( b) ( 2) i s di mi ni s he d. The S i xth Ci r cui t’ s r ec en t dec i si o n in Terrell v. U nited Sta tes , 56 4 F
. 3d 442 ( 6th Cir
. 2009 ) , supp or ts thi s inter preta
ti on o fRule 32
. 1( b) ( 2) ’ s “ opportunity t o appear. ” Ter re ll i nv o l ve d a he ar i ngb efo r e th e U. S
. Pa r o l e Comm i ssi o n; th e i ss ue was whethe r the u se o fv i deo co nfer en cing sa t i s fi e d 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 4 2 0 8 ( e ) ’ s r e q u i r e me n tth a t“ [ t ] he p ris on er sh al l b e a l low ed to ap p ea r an d te st ify on h is behal fat the paro l e deter m i nati on pro ceedi ng. ” The S i xth C irc u i t h eld th at “t o a p p ea r m ea n [s] t o b e p h ys ica lly pr es en t . ” Ter re ll, 56 4 F
. 3d at 45 1. A l though the questi on i n Terrellwas w hetherthe defe ndan t’ s a p p ea ra n c e v ia vid eo c o n f er en c e v iola te d th e p ar ole st at u te , th e re su lt m ust be the sam e when i t i s t h e judge w h os e p re se n c e is vi rtu al. The i m port ant point i s that the f or m and substa nti ve quali ty of the hear i ng i s al ter ed w h en a key10 N o. 09
- 1926 p ar tic ip an t is ab se n t from th e he ar in g room , ev en if h e is p ar tic ip a t i n g by virt u e o f a c ab le or sa te llite link . Th is i s par ti cul ar l y t r ue whenthe o ne who i s ab se ntha s th e p o we r t o i mp o s e a p r i s o n t e r m. Ou r re adingof Rule 32. 1( b) ( 2) al so com port s with th e t rad iti ona l legal un d erstan d ing of a p erson ’s “ap p earance” bef or e a cour t w hen hi s l iber ty i s a t s tak e in the proc ee d in g; inth is s itu a t i o n, to “ ap p ea r” h as ge n er ally been un d erstood to requ ire th e d efend an t to c om e pe rso na l l y b efo r e a j udi ci alo ffi ce r . Noto nl y i s th i s i ntui ti ve

— vid eo c on fer en c in g t echnol ogy w as ob vio u sly unknow n at com m on l aw
—bu t the Sup rem e C ou rt’s dec i si o n in E sco e v. Z erbst, 2 95 U
. S. 4 90 (1935) (Card ozo, J. ), con fi rm s th i s unde r st an di ng . In Esc oethe Co urt c on sid er ed th e p ro p rie ty of a j u d ge ’s o rd er su m m ar ily re vok i ng a cri m i naldefen d an t’ s probati on without a hear i ng. The Courthel d that a n ex par te re voca ti on o f proba ti on vi ol ate d the appl i cabl e federa lpro bati on st atut e, whi chr equi r ed th e pro ba ti o ne r t o b e “b r o ug ht be f ore the c o ur t” b efo r e pr o ba ti o n c o ul d b e r ev o k ed an d a pri son ter m im p os ed
. Id. at 492. The Courthel d that “the end and ai m o fan a pp ear ance b efo re the cour t” und erthe sta tute w as to “enabl e a n accuse d probat i oner to expla i n away the accusat i on, ” i d. at49 3, and t hi s r equir ed “br i ngi ng the proba ti oner i nto the prese nce of hi s j ud ge, ” i d. at49 4. A l though a h ea ring byvi deoco nferen ce is n o t th e sa m e as no he ar i nga t al l, the C our t’ s i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe s ta tu te a t i ss ue i n Es c oe i nfo rm s o ur inter p re tat i on o fthe “appeara nce” r equi re d by R ule 32.1(b)( 2).N o. 09
- 1926 11

W e no te as w ell that th e trea tm en t of v i d e oco nferen cing in 4 the Rul es ofCi vil Pr oc edur e al s o s ugge s t s thatvi deoconferenc ing i s the exc epti on ratherthan the rule
. Ru le 43 pro vi des : “F or goo d cause i n c om pel l i ng c i rc um s t anc es an d with a ppro p riat e s afeg uar ds , the c our tm ay per m i tt es t i m ony in o p en co u rt b y co n te m p o ra n eo u s tr a n sm iss io n fro m a d ifferentl ocati on. ” F ED . R. C IV . P
. 43 ( a)
. Des pi t e thi s pr ovi s i on, the Advis or y Com m i t t ee Note to the r ul e evi nc es a s t ro ng pre fer en c e f or l i ve, i n- c our t t es t i m ony as oppos ed t o vi deoco n fer en ci n g . F ED . R. C IV . P. 43 adv is ory com m it tee ’ s note 1996 a m en d .; seeal so Navarro , 16 9 F .3d at 23 9 (m a k in g th is p o in t). R ead in con te xtw ith rel evant cr im inal rule s, Civil Ru le 43 s u g g ests that“whe re the dra ft er s be l i eve thatvi deo c onferenc ing is ap p ro p riate, the d rafters w ill m ak e p ro v ision in the R ules f or the use ofthe te chnology.” N avarro , 169 F. 3d at 239. The rul es ofpro cedure sp ec ifical l y m enti on the use of vid eoc onfer enci ng i n other conte xts, and the tr eat m ent o f th i s al te r native f o r m o f“ appe ar an ce ” al so s uppo r ts o ur concl usi on that the o pp or tuni ty to a pp earguar antee d by Rule 32. 1( b) ( 2) i s no t s ati sfi ed by vi deoconferen ci ng. Fo r exam ple, Ru l e 5 , wh i ch go ver ns i ni ti alappeara nces, perm i ts vi deoconfer enci ng onl y i f the defe nd ant c onse nts. See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 5( f )
. S i m i l ar l y, Rul e 10 pe r m i ts the u se of vid eo c on fer en c in g for a rra ign m en ts , bu t a ga inon ly w hen the defe nd ant con se n ts. F ED . R. C RIM . P. 10(c). 4 That vi deoconfer enci ng is p er m i tte d onl y purs uant to a spe ci fi ca l l y e nu m er at ed ex ce pti o n a nd wi ththe de fen dan t’ s co nsen t de m o ns tr at es tha t th e us e o fthi s te ch

n olo gy is th e e x c ep tio n to th e ru le, n otth e d efa u lt ru le12 N o. 09
- 1926

The A dv is ory Com m it tee i s current ly c onsi dering a propo se d 5 am endm ent to Ru le 32. 1. Ifadop ted, the am endm ent, w hich would be codi fi ed as R ul e 32
. 1( f ) , w oul d pro vi de: “O n a defen d an t’ s requ est, the cou rt m ay allow the d efend an t to p articip ate in p ro ce ed in g s u n d er t h is ru le t h ro u g h v id eo te le co n fer en ci n g .” Th e c o mm i t t e e n o t e s a l s o s t a t e , “ [ t ] h e a me n dme n td o e s n ot ad d ress w he the r v ictim s, w itnesses, o r oth ers m ay p articip ate i n a ny h ea ri ng under R ul e 32
. 1 thr ough vi deo t el ec onfer en c i ng o r o th er m ea n s.” itself
. A ccord ingly, w e read the “op p ortu n ity to ap p ear”

5 i n Rule 32
. 1( b) ( 2) to excl ud e an “appeara nce” b y vid eo c on fer en c e. T h e d ist ric t jud ge ’s p ar tic ip at ion in Thom pson’ s r evo cati on hea ring v ia v i deoconfer ence vio lat ed th e ru le. This vi ol ati on, however, i s su bj ect to harm l ess - er ro r an aly sis
. See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 52(a). Rem an d i s the refore ne ce ss ar y o nl y i fthe g overn m ent

— o r i n thi s ca se , the ami cus

— dem onst ra tes thatthe proce du ra ler ro r d id not affect the o utcom e. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Eub anks , 59 3 F
. 3d 64 5, 6 55 ( 7th C ir
. 2 01 0)
. Ye t th e ami cus ha s no t ex pla in ed w h y the er ro r i s har m l ess ; thi s f ai l ure i s t el l i ng. T h e jud ge ’s a b se n c e f ro m th e c ou rt ro om m at er ially ch an g es the c ha r ac te r o fthe pr o ce eding, a nd the a m i cus be ar s a he av y b ur den i n s ho wi ngtha t su cha s i g ni fi ca nt proce du ra lsh i ft was har m l ess . Rule 32
. 1( b) ( 2) es tabl i shes a pro cedure that re quir es the defendant’s physi calpre sence b efor e the j ud ge, and vi deoconfer enci ng i s no t a n adequate s ubstitute. A s o ne co urt has no ted, “vi rtual re al ity is ra re ly a su b st itu te for a c tu al p re se n c e a n d
. . . wat ch i ng a n e ve nto n the s cr ee n r emai ns l es s th antheN o. 09
- 1926 13

Bec aus e we ho l d thatthe j udge’ s parti c i pat i on by vi deo- 6 c o n fe r e n c e v i o l a t e d R u l e 3 2 .1 , w e n e e d n o ta d d r e ss T h o m p so n ’s ar gum en t that hol di ng the he ar i ng by vi deoc onfer ence vi olat ed the Fi fth Am endm ent’ s D ue Proces s Clause.

3- 19- 10 c om p let e e q u iva len t o f ac tu ally at te n d i n g it
. ” Law re nce, 248 F
. 3 d a t 3 0 4
. I n s ho r t, the r e i s no wa y t o k no w wh at th e jud ge w ou ld h av e d on e h ad h e b ee n p re se n t in Rockf or d and fac e- to- f ace w i th Thom pson; we cannot concl ud e that the er ro r w as harm l ess . 6 A j udg e ’ s de c i s i o n whe the r t o s e nd a de fe nd a ntto pri son requir es a ca re ful, qual i tat i ve, and i nd i vi du al i zed ass ess m ent o fthe offense a nd the offender; no m att er how si m ple the c as e, thi s i s nev era m echani calo r ro te deter m i nati on. A t the end ofthe day, Rule 32
. 1( b) ( 2) re fl ects a concl u sio n that a j ud ge cannot proper l y a sse ss th e d efend an t w ith ou t the de fend an t’s i n-p erson ap p earan ce before th e cou rt. T he rule’s strictures are “m an d atory i n mea ninga s we l la s ma nd a t o r y i n f o rm , ” E s co e, 29 5 U
. S. at49 4, and the f or m o fthe hear i ng r equi re d by the rule excl ud es vi deoconfer enci ng. V ACA T ED an d R EMAND ED .