FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

No. 04-50193 Plaintiff-Appellee,

D.C. No.

v.  CR-01-01084-1-NAJ

WILLIAM LEWIS HALL,

OPINION Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Napoleon A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

February 18, 2005—Pasadena, California

Filed August 15, 2005

Before: A. Wallace Tashima, Kim McLane Wardlaw,

Circuit Judges, and Raner C. Collins, District Judge.*

Opinion by Judge Wardlaw

*The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the

District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 

10621
COUNSEL

Mark F. Adams, San Diego, California, for the appellant. 

Carol C. Lam, United States Attorney, San Diego, California,

for the appellee. 

10624 UNITED STATES v. HALL
OPINION

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge: 

We must decide whether the Sixth Amendment right to

confront testimonial witnesses established in Crawford v.

Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), applies to the admission of

hearsay evidence during revocation of supervised release proceedings. 

Factual Background

William Lewis Hall was on supervised release when, on

October 26, 2003, Hall’s probation officer, Janet Bergland,

picked up a voice mail message from Susan Hawkins reporting that Hall had been drunk and had beaten her up the night

before. Hawkins had attempted to file a police report, but the

police had been preoccupied fighting forest fires in the area

at the time.1 Hawkins intended to go to the police department

that day to file the police report. The message also indicated

that Hawkins had gone to a domestic violence shelter, which,

in turn, had sent her to St. Vincent de Paul’s homeless shelter.

As was her practice, and pursuant to office policy, Officer

Bergland memorialized the voice mail message in her official

chronological record of activities in Hall’s case. 

Also on October 26, Hawkins sought treatment at University of California San Diego (“UCSD”) Medical Center for

multiple bruises and scratches. Hawkins told her treating physician, Dr. Glover, that her live-in boyfriend had assaulted her

the night before. Dr. Grover concluded that Hawkins “had

contusions on her elbow, her chest and her back” and that

1

See Louis Sahagun et al., Southern California Firestorms; A Rampage

of Firestorms, L.A. Times, October 27, 2003, at 1A (describing the devastation caused by massive wild fires throughout Southern California,

including closed highways and evacuations that diverted local manpower

and resources). 

UNITED STATES v. HALL 10625
these injuries were “consistent with [her] complaint that she

had been assaulted by her boyfriend with an open hand.” He

prescribed vicodin and ibuprofen to alleviate her pain and

advised her to file a report with the police. Hawkins provided

the hospital with only her name and birth date; she did not

disclose any additional identifying information. 

On October 29, Officer Bergland called Hall to inquire

about Hawkins. Hall told Officer Bergland that Hawkins is a

“street person” and a “hooker”

2

 that he had taken in. He

claimed that she had come to his room the night of the 25th

and wanted to use drugs. According to Hall, he said no, they

argued, and he asked her to leave. Hall admitted that he

slapped Hawkins once during the argument, but denied that he

had been drinking that evening. He fell asleep before she left

the room. 

On October 30, Hawkins contacted the San Diego Police

Department to file a domestic violence report. Officer Gross

went to Saint Vincent de Paul’s, where Hawkins was staying,

to take the report. The only identification Hawkins gave Officer Gross was her name and social security number. Hawkins

told Officer Gross that she had been living with Hall and that

on the night of October 25th, she, Hall, and a man nicknamed

“Red” were drinking in his room. She and Hall began to fight.

Hall “slammed the heel of his left hand into her neck” and

told Red to leave the apartment, which he did. After Red left,

Hawkins told Hall that she wanted to get her stuff and leave.

In response, Hall grabbed a golf club that he kept near the

door and threatened to harm her if she attempted to leave the

room. Over the next four hours Hawkins and Hall argued.

During this time, Hall choked and battered her with the heel

of his hand on three separate occasions. Hall also kept the

phone away from Hawkins so she could not call the police.

2Officer Bergland investigated the assertion that Hawkins was a “hooker.” She found that Hawkins had no criminal record or arrest for anything

related to prostitution. 

10626 UNITED STATES v. HALL
Hawkins told Officer Gross that she eventually agreed to stay

to pacify Hall and then left after Hall fell asleep. 

After hearing Hawkins’ recitation, Officer Gross called in

a female officer to photograph Hawkins’ injuries. Officer

Tagaban photographed the bruises on Hawkins chest, back,

and elbow. The two officers went that day to Hall’s apartment

and arrested him. They found the golf club exactly where

Hawkins said it would be. 

On November 6, 2003, Officer Bergland petitioned the district court for a no-bail bench warrant alleging four violations

of Hall’s supervised release conditions: inflicting corporal

injury upon his girlfriend, falsely imprisoning her, associating

with a felon, Red, and failing to notify his probation officer

of his law enforcement contact and subsequent October 30

arrest within 72 hours. The district court issued the bench

warrant. Hall was arrested on the warrant on November 18,

2003, and arraigned. Hall denied each of the allegations of

noncompliance. A revocation hearing was set for April 8,

2004. 

Before the evidentiary hearing, Hall moved the district

court to exclude “the hearsay statements of Susan Hawkins,”

under the balancing test set forth in United States v. Comito,

177 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 1999). The district court denied the

motion. Three days later, the United States Supreme Court

issued Crawford. Hall requested reconsideration of his motion

to exclude Hawkins’ hearsay statements, relying on the newly

announced right to confront testimonial witnesses. The district

court ruled that Crawford, which governs Sixth Amendment

rights at trial, was not implicated by supervised release revocation proceedings. During the evidentiary hearing, conducted

pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2),

the government put on the five witnesses who had been in

contact with Hawkins following the assault by Hall. 

To summarize: Dr. Grover testified that he personally

examined Hawkins. He found several contusions that were

UNITED STATES v. HALL 10627
consistent with her description of Hall’s assault on her with

an open hand. He also identified Hawkins from the photos

taken by Officer Tagaban. 

Officer Tagaban authenticated the photographs she took of

Hawkins’ injuries and testified that Hawkins had stated that

the injuries resulted from her beating at the hands of her boyfriend. She also testified that she and her partner, Officer

Gross, went to Mr. Hall’s apartment and arrested him. 

Officer Gross testified that on October 29th he was dispatched to “investigate a potential domestic violence incident” at the Saint Vincent de Paul Shelter. When he arrived

at the shelter, he met Ms. Hawkins. Hawkins told him that she

was living with Hall, that on the night of the 25th she was “in

Mr. Hall’s apartment drinking with Mr. Hall and another gentleman by the name of Red,” and that during the evening Hall

and Red had argued over the attention Red had been paying

to Hawkins, which led to Hawkins and Hall’s argument. Hawkins told Officer Gross that Hall “got upset, choked her, and

hit her with his hand and knocked her to the bed.” After the

first assault, Hall told Red to leave, which he did. Hawkins

then told Hall, “You know what? I don’t want any more problems. I don’t want any more issues. Why don’t you let me get

my stuff and I’ll leave and we’ll be done.” Hall’s response

was to choke her and hit her again. Hawkins again said she

wanted to leave, and Hall grabbed a golf club from behind the

door and said, “I’m going to fuck you up if you leave.” 

Hawkins reported to Officer Gross that she was very afraid

of Hall and concerned for her safety. She had attempted to

call the police but Hall had taken the phone from her and

there was no way to escape because Hall’s second floor apartment had only one small window that lead to a courtyard.

Eventually, she realized she could not argue her way out of

the apartment so she told Hall, “You know what? I’m sorry.

Let’s make up. You know, all is forgiven. Let’s start with a

clean slate.” This tactic worked. Hall hugged her and then

10628 UNITED STATES v. HALL
eventually he laid down and passed out, allowing Hawkins to

gather her things and leave. 

Officer Gross also testified that Hawkins provided him

Hall’s full name, a physical description, and his address. After

leaving Hawkins, Officer Gross went to Hall’s apartment

where he arrested Hall and found the golf club behind the

front door, exactly where Hawkins said it would be. The golf

club itself was entered into evidence. 

“Red,” whose real name is Hubert Bystel Hall,3 testified

that he was in Hall’s apartment the night in question. He said

he saw Hall slap Hawkins and that he left the apartment

shortly after Hawkins was hit. 

Finally, Officer Bergland testified. All of Officer Bergland’s testimony derived from her “chronals,” written chronological entries kept by every probation officer as a regular part

of their duties. Officer Bergland reported that she received a

voicemail message from Hawkins stating that Hall had “gott[en] drunk the previous night and beat her up” and that the

police “were too busy fighting fire to take a report.” After getting the message, she testified that she called Hall. He told her

that Hawkins was living with him and that they had argued

and he slapped her. 

Officer Bergland also testified that she had tried to contact

Hawkins at the St. Vincent de Paul shelter, but was told that

Hawkins’ family had sent for her and she had left without

leaving a forwarding address. 

At the end of the hearing, the district court sustained allegations one and two of the Violation Petition, the domestic violence and false imprisonment allegations, revoked Hall’s

3Hubert Hall has no relationship with the defendant. We refer to him by

his nickname, “Red.” 

UNITED STATES v. HALL 10629
supervised release, and sentenced him to 24 months in custody. 

DISCUSSION

Hall contends on appeal that the admission of Hawkins’

hearsay statements at his revocation hearing violated his Sixth

Amendment right to confrontation as articulated in Crawford.

As an alternative claim of error, Hall contends that even if we

determine that Crawford did not give him an absolute right to

confront Hawkins, a proper analysis of his due process rights

under Comito would require exclusion of Hawkins’ hearsay

statements. We disagree.

I. Crawford Does Not Apply to Revocation Proceedings.

[1] In Crawford, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants the

right to confront “testimonial” witnesses. 541 U.S. at 68-69.

“Testimonial statements” include statements taken by police

officers during their investigations, such as Hawkins’ statements to Officer Gross. Id. at 52. Testimonial hearsay evidence may be admitted over the objection of the defendant

only when the common law requirements of “unavailability

and a prior opportunity for cross-examination” are met. Id. at

68. 

[2] The Court derived this broad protection against testimonial hearsay evidence solely from the Sixth Amendment. See

id. at 38 (“The question presented is whether this procedure

complied with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that, ‘[i]n all

criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to

be confronted with the witnesses against him.’ ”) (quoting

U.S. Const. amend. VI); id. at 61 (“Where testimonial statements are involved, we do not think the Framers meant to

leave the Sixth Amendment’s protection to the vagaries of the

rules of evidence. . . .”). As the Court noted, the Sixth

Amendment applies only to “criminal prosecutions.” Id. at 38.

10630 UNITED STATES v. HALL
[3] We reject Hall’s assertion that Crawford extends the

Sixth Amendment right to confrontation to revocation of

supervised release proceedings. “We begin with the proposition that the revocation of parole4

 is not part of a criminal

prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to parole revocations.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972). See

also Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973). Because

“[r]evocation deprives an individual, not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only of the conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special

parole restrictions” the full protection provided to criminal

defendants, including the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, does not apply to them. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 480.

Rather, a due process standard is used to determine whether

hearsay evidence admitted during revocation proceedings violates a defendant’s rights. Id. at 482. 

[4] In Crawford, the Supreme Court addressed the Sixth

Amendment rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions; it

did not address the due process rights attendant to postconviction proceedings for violations of conditions of release.

See 2A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure Criminal § 412 (3d ed. 2000 & Supp.

2005). We, like the two circuits that have also addressed this

question, see no basis in Crawford or elsewhere to extend the

Sixth Amendment right of confrontation to supervised release

proceedings. See United States v. Aspinall, 389 F.3d 332, 342

(2d Cir. 2004) (holding that Crawford does not apply to probation revocation because Crawford and the Sixth Amendment apply only to “criminal prosecutions” and “it has long

4Parole, probation, and supervised release revocation hearings are constitutionally indistinguishable and are analyzed in the same manner. See

United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (noting that the Supreme

Court and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure have extended the

same minimum due process rights to all three types of revocation proceedings). 

UNITED STATES v. HALL 10631
been established that probation revocation, like parole revocation, is not a stage of a criminal prosecution”) (internal quotations omitted); United States v. Martin, 382 F.3d 840, 844 n.4

(8th Cir. 2004) (holding that the confrontation right in criminal prosecutions does not apply to supervised release revocation proceedings because they are not part of a criminal

prosecution). 

II. Due Process and the Comito Balancing Test.

[5] Hall nevertheless enjoys a due process right to confront

witnesses against him during his supervised release proceedings, as the Supreme Court held over thirty years ago in Morrissey. “Under Morrissey, every releasee is guaranteed the

right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses at a

revocation hearing, unless the government shows good cause

for not producing the witnesses.” Comito, 177 F.3d at 1170.

To determine “whether the admission of hearsay evidence

violates the releasee’s right to confrontation in a particular

case, the court must weigh the releasee’s interest in his constitutionally guaranteed right to confrontation against the Government’s good cause for denying it.” Id.

We must “assess the significance of the releasee’s interest

in the right to confrontation.” Id. at 1171. “The weight to be

given the right to confrontation . . . depends on two primary

factors: the importance of the hearsay evidence to the court’s

ultimate finding and the nature of the facts to be proven by the

hearsay evidence.” Id. Because the nature of the facts proven

by Hawkins’ hearsay statements, as well as its significance to

each of the violations found by the district court differ, we

must balance Hall’s interest in confronting Hawkins separately for each sustained violation. 

A. Domestic Violence Violation. 

[6] Because the nonhearsay evidence introduced at the evidentiary hearing alone was sufficient to sustain the domestic

10632 UNITED STATES v. HALL
violence allegation, the hearsay evidence could not have significantly affected the court’s ultimate finding. Cf. United

States v. Martin, 984 F.2d 308, 311 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding

a due process violation because the contested evidence was

“uniquely important to the court’s finding” and the district

court “exclusively relied” on it in determining guilt). To convict Hall of inflicting corporal injury on his girlfriend, the

court need only have found that Hall willfully inflicted “corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition” on someone

with whom he was cohabitating. See Cal. Penal Code

§ 273.5(a). Bruising is a “traumatic condition” for purposes of

the statute. People v. Beasley, 105 Cal. App. 4th 1078, 1085

(2003) (finding bruising sufficient to sustain conviction under

Section 273.5). 

[7] The nonhearsay evidence at the hearing was substantial

and sufficient to conclusively prove the domestic violence

charge. Red testified that he was in Hall’s apartment that evening and saw Hall hit Hawkins. Hall admitted to Officer Bergland that he was living with Hawkins and that he had hit her

that evening. These facts, combined with the photographs

taken by Officer Tagaban revealing Hawkins’ bruises shortly

after the incident were sufficient to sustain the domestic violence violation.5

[8] In addition, several pieces of evidence supporting the

domestic violence allegation are admissible under hearsay

exceptions. Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not

strictly apply to revocation hearings, see United States v.

Walker, 117 F.3d 417, 421 (9th Cir. 1997), long-standing

exceptions to the hearsay rule that meet the more demanding

requirements for criminal prosecutions should satisfy the

5Thus, given that the domestic violence allegation was proven by nonhearsay evidence, even if the hearsay evidence should not have been

admitted, any error was harmless as to this allegation. See Comito, 177

F.3d at 1170 (improper admission of hearsay testimony is subject to harmless error review). 

UNITED STATES v. HALL 10633
lesser standard of due process accorded the respondent in a

revocation proceeding. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489

(“[T]he process [in revocation hearings] should be flexible

enough to consider evidence . . . that would not be admissible

in an adversary criminal trial.”). 

The medical records from Hawkins’ hospital visit and the

notes of Hall’s parole officer were records kept in the ordinary course of business, classic exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Hawkins’ statements to Dr. Grover,

including that her live-in boyfriend had caused her injuries,

were statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or

treatment, and also hearsay exceptions. See Fed. R. Evid.

803(4) (describing as exceptions to the hearsay rule all

“[s]tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment . . . or the inception or general character of the cause or

external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment”). 

[9] Hall’s interest in excluding hearsay evidence relevant to

the domestic violence allegation was thus weak, especially

when weighed against the government’s good cause for not

producing Hawkins. See infra at 10637. Cf. Comito, 177 F.3d

at 1171 (noting that the hearsay evidence was the only evidence provided for the contested element of the violation and

therefore the releasee had “a very strong interest in demonstrating that the hearsay testimony did not reflect ‘verified

fact’ ”). 

B. False Imprisonment Violation.

[10] In contrast to the substantial nonhearsay evidence supporting the domestic violence charge, Officer Gross’ account

of Hawkins’ statements regarding false imprisonment were

undoubtedly significant to the court’s ultimate finding. Under

California law, false imprisonment is “the unlawful violation

of the personal liberty of another.” Cal. Penal Code § 236.

The evidence of false imprisonment in this case primarily

10634 UNITED STATES v. HALL
comes from Hawkins’ account of the evening as testified to

by Officer Gross. 

1) Nature of facts to be proven by hearsay evidence.

[11] The hearsay evidence relevant to the court’s decision

to sustain the false imprisonment allegation were the

“[u]nsworn verbal allegations” of Hawkins to Officer Gross

and are thus “in general, the least reliable type of hearsay.”

Comito, 177 F.3d at 1171. Unlike in Comito, however, Hawkins’ statements bear indicia of reliability. Hawkins’ statement to the police was supported by Gross’ discovery of the

golf club where she said it would be. Her statement is also

corroborated by the consistency with which she reported the

events of the evening to multiple people shortly after the incident, Red’s testimony, Dr. Glover’s medical conclusions,

Hawkins’ documented physical bruising, and even Hall’s own

statements to Officer Bergland. Finally, the reliability of the

domestic violence aspect of her statements to the police gives

credence to the rest of her account of the evening, including

Hall’s threats to injure her if she left the apartment. See Martin, 382 F.3d at 846 (finding, under the Eighth Circuit’s balancing test, no due process violation, in part because the

corroboration of the hearsay evidence made it inherently more

reliable). 

This is not the end of the inquiry, however. Simply because

hearsay evidence bears some indicia of reliability does not

render it admissible. See Martin, 984 F.2d at 313-314 (even

urinalysis testing conducted by a laboratory is not sufficiently

reliable to create a blanket rule that releasee has no interest in

contesting the results). Hall’s otherwise strong interest in confrontation is somewhat lessened by the reliability of the hearsay evidence, but it is not defeated. 

Because Hall has a serious interest in confronting Hawkins

as to the false imprisonment allegation, we must turn our

attention to the other side of the scale to determine whether

UNITED STATES v. HALL 10635
the government had good cause in failing to produce Hawkins, and whether that good cause outweighs Hall’s right to

confrontation. 

2) The government’s good cause.

In determining the government’s good cause in not producing a witness, we look to “both the difficulty and expense of

procuring witnesses and the traditional indicia of reliability

borne by the evidence.” Id. at 312 (citation and quotations

omitted). 

[12] The government has provided a good reason for not

producing Hawkins—despite substantial efforts to locate her,

the government was unable to find her. Hawkins is a homeless woman who left the shelter where she was staying after

the attack without leaving a forwarding address and has not

been heard from since. Hall’s probation officer tried to find

her through the shelter. The government ran checks on Hawkins’ social security number and birth date, the only identifying information it possessed, and were unable to locate her.

The district court determined that the government had done

all it could do to locate Hawkins. See Martin, 382 F.3d at 846

(finding that the government had good cause not to produce

the witness because the witness refused to testify out of fear

of retaliation by defendant).6 This effort stands in stark contrast to cases where we have found that the government did

not have good cause for failing to produce a witness. See, e.g.,

Comito, 177 F.3d at 1172 (noting that the witness was readily

available to the government, was in contact with the defendant almost daily, and the government offered no explanation

for not producing her). 

6The difficulty of securing the testimony of domestic violence victims,

like Hawkins, against their batterers is well recognized. See Tom Lininger,

Prosecuting Batterers After Crawford, 91 Va. L. Rev. 747, 769 (2005)

(citing research which showed that “the most common reason for dismissal of domestic violence prosecutions . . . was victims’ failure to make

court appearances or to testify against the defendants”). 

10636 UNITED STATES v. HALL
In addition, as discussed, the hearsay testimony regarding

the false imprisonment bears some indicia of reliability. Hawkins statement to the police was supported by Gross’ discovery of the golf club where she said it would be, the

consistency with which she reported the events of the evening, the testimony of Red and Dr. Glover, the bruises on her

body documented by the police photographs, and even Hall’s

own statements. 

[13] Although Hall had a strong interest in confronting

Hawkins with regard to the false imprisonment charge, on

balance, that interest is outweighed by the government’s good

cause for not producing Hawkins as a witness and the independent indicia of reliability that support Hawkins’ statements

to Officer Gross. 

CONCLUSION

Crawford does not create a Sixth Amendment right of confrontation applicable to supervised release revocation or similar proceedings. Hall had a due process right to confront a

testimonial witness which is not absolute. Balancing the Comito factors, we conclude that Hall had little interest in confrontation with respect to the domestic violence allegation because

the hearsay evidence was insignificant to the ultimate finding.

This minimal interest was outweighed by the government’s

substantial showing of good cause for not producing Hawkins

at the hearing. Although Hall had a relatively strong interest

in confronting Hawkins with respect to the false imprisonment allegation, his interest in confrontation on that allegation

is outweighed by the government’s good cause for failing to

produce Hawkins at the hearing—both because the government made every effort to do so and because the hearsay evidence was substantially corroborated. For these reasons,

Hall’s due process rights were not violated and the final order

of revocation is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED. 

UNITED STATES v. HALL 10637