Opinion ID: 695539
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure To Make Explicit Findings: A Stitch in Time....

Text: 19 We first consider whether the district court reversibly erred in failing to make discrete findings of fact regarding the reliability of the hearsay evidence or in failing to conduct the requisite balancing on the record. Although we are disappointed by the district court's failure to heed both our and the Supreme Court's clear mandate to make appropriate findings on the record, we nevertheless cannot conclude that these omissions, in this particular case, constitute harmful error. 7 20 In United States v. Kindred, 8 we noted that procedural due process requires that a district court render a written statement specifying the evidence on which it relies in revoking supervised release. 9 In that case, however, we also found that failing to provide such a statement can be harmless if the evidence presented at the proceeding overwhelmingly shows that the defendant had violated the conditions of his supervised release. 10 21 In the instant case, the district court concluded that the government established the allegations in the Petition on Supervised Release, and the record makes clear what evidence the government proffered. Implicit in the district court's judgment, not to mention its rulings rejecting McCormick's objections, is its finding that the government's hearsay evidence is reliable. 11 Thus, like the court in Kindred, we find harmless the district court's otherwise reversible error in failing to identify specifically the item or items of the government's evidence on which the court relied. 12 22 A court must expressly find that there is good cause to deny a defendant the right to confront and cross-examine an adverse witness in a parole revocation hearing. 13 McCormick claims that the district court reversibly erred in failing to make an explicit finding, on the record, that there was good cause for dispensing with confrontation during his hearing. We disagree. 23 The district court overruled McCormick when he objected on confrontation grounds to the admission of the PharmChem urinalysis report and to Officer Velasquez' testimony regarding the CI's observations and the results of the urinalysis conducted at the VA Hospital. Implicit in those rulings is the conclusion that the district court believed that the government established good cause to forego confrontation. Although in some cases the failure to make such a finding on the record can constitute reversible error that is not harmless, 14 the clarity of the testimony and the quality and extent of the documentary evidence in the instant case are sufficient to enable us to review the district court's implicit conclusions. 15 As such, we deem it unnecessary to remand to that court for it to make explicit that which is already implicit. Whether the naked record, absent such express findings, is sufficient to withstand scrutiny is another matter, to which we now advert our attention.