### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 13-3184
U NI T E D S TAT E SOF A M E RI C A , Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v.

L ORE NZ O M O S L E Y

, Defen dant-Appellant.
Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the Nor thern Distri ct o f Indi ana, Hammond Di v i sio n. No. 2: 07CR 19 2

— Jame s T. Moody, Judg e.
A RGU E D A PRI L 17, 2014

— D E C I D E D J ULY 16, 2014

Before M AN I O N

, S YKE S , and T I ND E R

, Circ uit Judges. M AN IO N , Cir cui t Judge

. Lore nzo Mosley w as convic ted in 2008 of di strib uting co caine base (crack), in violati on of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1). Follo wing hi s release from pris on, and whi le he w as on supervis ed release, he w as arr est ed by local poli ce for dealing co caine, possess ing cocaine and mari juana, and driving wi th a sus pended lic ense. Mosley’s federal probat i on offi cer petiti oned the di stric t court to find him in v iolation of hi s condi tions of supervis ed release and rev oke hi s supervis ed2 No. 13-2358
release. Mosley admi tte d possess i on of co ca ine , but deni ed dealing cocaine, a more ser i ous “Grade A” violati on. At the 1
rev ocation hearin g, the di stric t court heard hearsay statements i n a recor ded i nterv i ew of a w oman cla imin g to hav e bought
co caine from Mosley and from the testim ony of the arr esti ng offi cer , who had interv i ew e d t he w oman. Mosley w as not g iven the oppor tuni ty to confront or cross-examine th e
w oman. Ultim ately

, the dist ric t court found Mosley had
co mmi tte d all the alleged violati ons, rev oke d Mosle y ’ s supervis ed rel e a se, and sentenced hi m to 21 months’ incarceration. M osley appeals, ar gui ng that i t w as er ro r for t he di stric t court t o a dmi t the hearsay statements wi thout finding that there w as “goo d caus e,” as required by Feder al R ule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b) (2 )(C) and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Cla us e a s interpr eted in Morrissey v
. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). W

e conclu de that the di stric t court di d err , but that t he err or w as harmless and so we affi rm. I. Background On July 26, 2012, Detecti v e Ti mothy Nosi ch of the Munster P olic e Department, whi le driving in hi s squad car , observ ed a car stopped i n front of a house. He saw a w oman get in the car on the pass en g e r side. As he drove by , Detecti v e Nosi ch notic ed the w oman nerv ously w atching h i s squad car wi th “a look of d r e a d.” After pass ing by , he kept an ey e on the car in hi s rear view mi rr or and notic ed that the w oman qui ckly exited the car

. Based o n hi s sev en y ears of exper i ence, Detecti v e

Mo sle y also admitted dri v i ng whil e his l i cense was suspended and was 1 fo und i n v i ol atio n fo r possessi ng marij uan a, b ut neither of those v i ol atio ns i s rel evant to thi s appeal.No. 13-2358 3
Nosi ch beli ev ed he had just wi tnessed a drug deal. He follow ed the car when i t pulled aw ay and as soon as he observ ed
a tr affi c violati on—turning without si gnali ng—he pulled the
car ov er

. The driv er

, Lore nzo Mosley

, had been oper atin g wi th
a sus pended li cens e, so Detecti v e Nosi ch arr ested him and began an i nv entor y search of the car

. He di scov ered a small amount of mari

juana hi dden in a dashb oa r d p a ne l, a small amount of crack cocaine in a clear baggie on the floor betw een the pas senger s eat and the c enter console, and $300 to $400 in cash on hi s person. No paraphernalia for using ei ther crack or mari juana w ere present in hi s car

. W i thi n an hour , Detecti v e Nosi ch and another offi cer made contact wi th She ry l Sim mons, the w oman who had got ten in and out of th e car , and quest i oned her

. At the tim e, she w as carry ing a gr oc e r y ba g contai ning p ot sc rubbing p ads (wh i ch, accordi ng to Detecti v e Nosi ch, are commonly used as fi lter s in crack pi pes). After a bri ef conv ersation, Sim mons allow ed t he offi cers to enter her home and she ga ve t he m four li ttle y ellow baggies that contai ned what appeared to be crack cocaine, whi ch had been i n her purse, and a crack pi pe. At t he tim e Mo sley w as arrested, he w as near the end of a three -y ear ter m o f superv ised r elease fo llowing incarceration for a convic tion for di strib uti on of cocaine base (crack cocaine), in v io l a tion of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1). The prior convic tion stemmed from Mosley selling li ttle y e l l o w plasti c baggies of
cra ck cocaine. PSR at 4. When Mosley’ s probat i on offi cer learned of Mosley’ s arr est (and resulti ng state cri minal charges) he fi led a p e t it ion wi th the di stric t court seeking rev ocation of Mosley’ s supe rv i sed release. The petiti on alleged violati ons of the condi tions of his supervis ed release for4 No. 13-2358
d i strib uti ng cocaine, possess ing mari juana and cocaine, a nd d riving wi th a sus pended li cens e. The most seri ous alleged violati on w as di strib uti ng cocaine, a Grade A violat io n. The 2 di stric t court h e l d a h e a rin g wh e re Mo s l e y admi tte d possess ing co caine and driving whi le hi s li cens e w as sus pended. W it h reg ard to di stribut ing cocaine, Detecti v e Nosi ch testifi ed, wi thout o bjection, to the even ts recounted abov e. How ev er

, at the rev ocation hearin g, D etectiv e Nosi ch also testifi ed to statements that Si mmons had made to hi m duri ng their co nver sati on and he play ed a video of her being inter

viewed for the ju d ge

— b oth ove r Mo s l e y’s objections. Detecti v e Nosi ch, and Sim mo ns via the recor ded interv i ew , recounted the following: Sim mons had ini tiall y sai d that she w as payin g Mosley for rides he had giv en her

. But later in the conv ersation she admi tte d to the offi cers that she had called Mosley tw enty to thi rt y minutes before he arr i v ed to arr ange a purchas e of crack cocaine. When Mosley arr i v ed and she bri efly got in the
car wi th hi m, she pur chas ed fi v e li ttle y ellow baggies of cocaine fo r $ 1 0 each plus a $5 deli v ery fee, tot aling $55. Sim mons also stated that she had already smoked one of the li ttle baggies, but she too k the offi cers into her home and gav e them the other four baggies and her crack pi pe. Later that day , Detecti v e Nosi ch i nterv ie w e d Sim mons at the station (wh i ch

w as recor de d and play ed at Mosley’ s hearin g). There, Sim mons repeat ed the same stor y but a l so g a ve more backVi ol atio ns are graded ei ther A, B, or C b ased on the se r i o u sn e ss of the 2 conduc t and each grade di ffe rs regardi ng the necessity, o r l e ngth, of revocatio n. SeeU. S.S .G. § § 7 B1. 1– 7B1 .4.No. 13-2358 5
gr oun d ab ou t h e r h a ving purchas ed crack cocaine from Mos l e y about thirty t i mes ov er t he past fi v e y ears. Mosley objecte d strenuously to all of Sim mons’s out-ofcourt statements whether offered via the video or Detecti v e Nosi ch’s testim ony

, arg uing that they w ere hearsay a nd that denyi ng h i m the right to cross-examine Sim mons violated hi s consti tutional right to confront hi s accu ser

. The di stric t court
sum mari ly o ver ruled these objections and found that the government ha d met i ts burden of prov ing all Mosley’ s vi ol a ti on s b y a preponder ance of the evidenc e. Becaus e dealing cocaine w as a Grade A violati on, Mosley’ s gui deline range w as 15–21 months’ i ncarceration and the d ist ric t court sentenced hi m to 21 months’ i ncarceration. Had that drug vio l a t io n not been found, hi s gui deline range w ould hav e been 6–12 months’ inc arcerat i on. See U.S.S .G. § 7B1.4 (Mosley’s next hi gh e st violati on (wh i ch he admi tte d) w as Grade B and hi s cri minal hi stor y w as Catego ry II). Mo sley appeals. II. Disc uss ion Whi le deci si ons to rev oke supervis ed release are rev i ew ed for abuse o f dis cretion, United States v

. Dewayne, 702 F .3d 373, 375 (7th Ci r
. 2012), consti tutional arg uments are rev i ew ed de
novo

. United S ta te s v
. Robinson , 14 F .3d 1200, 1202 (7th Ci r
. 1994). A. Constitutional Analysis W e hav e held that the Sixth Amendment, inc l uding the Supreme Court ’s holding in Crawford v
. W ashington , 541 U.S. 36 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( th a t admi tting testim oni al h e a rs a y w i th ou t the op p or tu

ni ty to confront the declarant viol a t ed the Confro ntation6 No. 13-2358 Clause) , does not a p p l y to supervis ed release rev ocation hearin gs. United States v
. Kelle y, 446 F .3d 688, 690–92 (7th Ci r
. 2006). The Due Process C l a use of the Fifth Amendment sti ll
secu res “ the right to confront and cross-examine adv erse wit ne sses [in rev ocation proceedings] (unl ess the hearing offi cer sp e c i f

i cally finds goo d caus e for not allowing confrontation).” Morrissey, 408 U.S. a t 4 8 9

. B u t c on s i dering the parenthet

ica l claus e, “w e hav e interpr eted Morrissey

... to permi t t he admi ssi on of reliable hearsay at rev ocation hearin gs wi thout a speci fi c showing of goo d caus e.” Kelle y, 446 F .3d at 692 (ci tin g United Stat es v

. Pratt

, 52 F .3d 671, 675 (7th Ci r . 1995)). Hearsay i s reliab le i f i t “‘bears sub stanti al guaran t e e s of tr ust-w or thi

ness .’” Id. (quoti ng Egerstaffer v
. Israel , 726 F .2d 1231, 1234 (7th Ci r
. 1984)). And “essenti ally [ w e] tr eat[] a finding of ‘subs tantial tr ustw or thi ness ’ as the equ i v alent of a goo d caus e finding for the admi ssi on of hearsay .” Id. Ev en i f t he di stric t court neglects to find ei ther goo d caus e or reliab i li ty , there i s no err or so long as the “recor d

... i s suffi ci ently clear

... t ha t t he

... hearsay w as substanti ally tr ustw or thy so as to establi sh good
caus e for not produci ng [the declarants] as li v e wi tnesses.” Id. at 693. If the reco r d so e stabli shes, the admi ssi on of hearsay wi ll “not unde rmi ne the fund amental fai rness of [a defendant’s] rev ocation hearin g and [wi ll] no t violate hi s right to due process.” Id

. A ccordingly , i f w e can conclu de from the
recor d on appeal t ha t hearsay evidenc e w as reliab le, then admi ssi on of Sim mons’s hearsay stateme nt s di d not violate due process. S imm ons’s hearsay statements w ere reliab le. The offi cer observ ed what Sim mons later admi tte d w as a drug tr ansac tion and Sim mo ns produced the li ttle y ellow baggies of crackNo. 13-2358 7
cocaine that she clai med to hav e purchas ed from Mosley

. And her stor y that selling crack in li ttle yellow baggies w as hi s si gnature w as corr obor ated by his prior cri minal convic tion
sum mari zed i n hi s PSR. In addi tio n t o that corr obor ation, Sim mons’s statements w ere again st her penal intere st. And whi le her av ai labi li ty w ould make her statements inadmi ssi ble i n a typical cri minal hearin g, see Fed. R. Evid. 804(a) and (b) (3), the rules of evidenc e do not apply in supervis ed release hearin gs and the fact that her statement w as again st her penal i ntere st i s y et another indi cat i on of s ub s tanti al tr ustw or thi ness

. Accordi ngly

, the d ist ric t court’s admi ssi on of Sim mons’s statements di d not v i olate M osley’s rights to due pro cess

. B. Rule Analysis In addi tion to the prot ecti ons prov i ded by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Rule 32.1(b) (2)( C) requires “a di stric t court i n a rev ocation he a r ing explic i tly to balanc e the defendant’s consti tutional int erest in confrontat i on and cross-examinati on again st the government’s stated reasons for denyi ng them.” United S tat es v
. Jorda n , 742 F .3d 276, 280 (7th Ci r
. 2014). Unli ke the consti tutional analysi s, “reliab ilit y

3

Rul e 32 .1 was l argely a cod i fi catio n of Morrissey ’s hol di ng, and the 3 adv i sory commi ttee fo r the 20 02 amen dments encour aged a p p ly in g th e rul e i n acc o r d wi th the ci rcui ts who empl oy a b alancing-test i nterpretati on of Morrisse y

. See Kelle

y, 44 6 F

. 3 d at 6 92 n.4 (catalo guing ci rcui ts who requir e an expli ci t fi nding o f goo d cause or a b alancing test); United States v. LeBlanc, 17 5 F.3d 51 1, 51 5 (7 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (Rule 32 .1 “was l argely a cod i fi catio n of Morrissey, 40 8 U.S

. 47 1, which fi rst held tha t due pro cess requir ed

... a revocatio n hearing” and a l i mited conf ro nta tio n ri ght); F e d

. R. Cri m. P. 32 .1 adv i sory c ommi ttee’s 2 00 2 note (“ the cour t shoul d appl y a b alancing (continued...)8 No. 13-2358

cannot be t he be g inning and end of the ‘i ntere st of justic e’ analysi s under Rule 32.1(b) (2)( C), and w e do not mean to i m p ly that finding the hearsay reliab le w ould alone suffi ce to supp or t i ts admi ssi on unde r the rule .” Id. at 280 (emph a si s added). Rather , the defendant’ s intere st mus t be balanc ed again st the government’s reasons. Id. Whi le reliab i li ty of hearsay weakens the defendant’s i ntere st in confrontat i on, a w eak intere st i s enough to tip the balanc e tow ard exclusi on i f the gov ernment offers no reasons for not produci ng the wi tness. Accordingly , a showing of reliab i li ty in the recor d on appeal does not mean there w as no err or

, nor does i t m ake the violati on of Rule 32.1 harmless. Rather

, w e mus t co nsi der whether the hearsay

w ould hav e been admi tte d had the di stric t cour t corr ectly consi dered the competi ng intere sts. And whi le the reli abi li ty of the hearsay g oes a long way to w ard answ ering that questi on,
w e mus t also look at the government’s reasons for not affordi ng confrontat i on. In thi s case, the di stric t court fai led to balanc e Mosley’ s consti tutional in te re s ts in confrontat i on and cross-examinati on wi th the government’s reasons for not produci ng the wi tness. Thi s w as err or un der Rule 32.1. Further , we cannot conclu de that the di stric t court w ould hav e admi tte d the hearsay i f i t had proper ly balanc ed the intere sts becau se, ev en i f the hearsay w as reliab le (whi ch we think it w as), the government has offered no reason whatsoev er for fai ling to produce Sim mons. Accordi ngly , there i s nothin g in the recor d to balanc e agains t Mo sley’s intere st.

(...continued) test at the hearing i tsel f” (ci ting Morrisse y, 4 08 U. S. at 489 )).No. 13-2358 9 Nonetheless, ev en where a pro p e r balanc ing of the intere sts
w ould w ei gh i n fav or of excluding hearsay , i ts err oneous admi ssi on may sti ll be harmless for the alter nate reason that the violati on of supervis ed rele a se w ould hav e been found
ev en wi thout the hearsay ev ide nc e. See, e.g., United States v
. Johnson , 927 F .2d 999, 10 0 3

– 0 4 (7th Ci r
. 1991) (holding that admi ssi on of hearsay w as harmless where stro ng c i rcums tantial evi dence establi shed the same facts). That i s t he case here becau se, c on si dering only the non-hearsay evidenc e sub mi tte d to the di stric t court, the resul t w ould hav e been the s ame. “T o rev oke a defendant's supervis ed rel ease under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) , the di stric t court mus t find by a preponder ance of the evidenc e that the defendant violated the t e r ms of hi s supervis ed release.” United States v
. Goa d, 44 F .3d 580, 585 (7th Ci r . 1995). Detecti v e Nosi ch obs erv ed Sim mons g lance at hi m wi th a nerv ous look of dread whi le get tin g in Mosley’ s car only to get back out right aw ay

. Immedi ately the r e a fter , Detecti v e Nosi ch caught Mosley wi th crack cocaine, but no paraphernali a for its us e, and $300 to $400 in cas h. Detecti v e Nosi ch then qui ckly caught up wi th Sim mons and found that she w as carry i ng material i n a gr ocery bag that hi s exper i ence told hi m
w as used for fi lter s i n a crack pi pe. Hi s exper i ence proved right when Sim mons surrendered four li ttle y ellow baggies of what appeared to be crack cocaine and a crack pi pe. Detecti v e Nosi ch testifi ed to these facts and hi s opin io n based on y ears of exper i ence that what he had wi tnessed w as a drug deal. But the di stric t court di d not hav e to rely on that alone. In the PSR from Mosley ’ s p r evious cri minal convic tion, w e see that he used li ttle y ellow baggies to hold the crack cocain e that he sold—exactly what Sim mons surrendered to poli ce from her10 No. 13-2358
purse only a bout an hour after get tin g in and out of the car wi th hi m. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (2) (evid ence of other cri mes admi ssi ble to prove i denti ty

, i .e., modus op e r an d i ). All of thi s t o gether i s stro ng ci rcums tantial evidenc e that Mosley de a l t
cr ack cocaine to Sim mons wi thout any need for recourse t o Sim mons’s reliab le statements. Sim mons’s statements just
c onfi rm e d wh a t the c i rcu m s tantial evide n c e h a d in d e p e n d e n tly made clear

. Accordi ngly , di sregar ding the hearsay , the government sti l l w o uld hav e met i ts burden of prov ing by a preponder ance of the e vi d e n ce that Mosley di strib uted cocaine i n violati on of hi s condi tions of supervis ed release. Becaus e 4 the result w ould hav e bee n t he same wi thout admi tting the hearsay , the er ro r w as harmless

. 5

III. Conclusi on The di stric t court err ed by fai ling to balanc e Mosle y ’ s consti tutio na l i ntere st in confronting and cross-examining

In Jorda n , we wer e unab l e to deter mine whether the hearsay i n a p ol i ce 4 repo rt woul d hav e b een admitted had the di stric t cour t b alance d t he i nt e r e sts. 74 2 F.3d at 28 1– 82

. Li kewise here, we cann ot concl ude tha t the he arsa y woul d hav e b een admitted had the di stric t cour t b alanced the compe ting interests. Remand w as necessary in Jorda n b ecause the g overnment rel i ed almost exclusi v el y on the hearsa y i n the pol i ce repo rt. Id

. at 27 8. However, here, the government of fere d more e vi dence of Mo sle y’s

v i ol atio ns tha n just Si mmons’s statem ents, so we fi nd t he erro r harm l ess b ased on the strength of the non-hearsay ev i dence.

Because the di stric t cour t onl y made a rul e erro r, not a consti t u t i o na l 5

erro r, the normal harm l ess erro r rul e o f Fed . R. Cr i m. P. 52 (a) appl i es, no t the higher standard o f Chapm an v. California , 3 86 U. S. 18 (196 7) . See United States v. Talbott, 78 F.3d 11 83 , 11 88 (7 th C i r
. 19 96 ), ab ro gated on other grounds by Dix on v. United Stat es , 5 48 U. S. 1 ( 20 06 ).No. 13-2358 11
Sim mons wi t h the government’s reasons for not producing her

. But that err or w as harmless becau se the result w ould hav e been th e same ev en wi thout any of Sim mons’s out-of-court statements. Accordi ngly , w e A F F I R M the judgment of the di stric t court

.