Opinion ID: 681024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of Hearsay Testimony

Text: 24 Alaniz attacks the quality of the evidence from another angle as well. Alaniz asserts that because Longoria's testimony lacked credibility, such hearsay testimony should not have been admitted because it was not sufficiently reliable. [C]ourts considering the admissibility of hearsay in revocation proceedings have adopted an approach which balances the [releasee's] interest in confronting a particular witness against the government's good cause for denying it, particularly focusing on the indicia of reliability of a given hearsay statement. 7 The district judge did not apply this balancing test, however, because Alaniz failed to object to this testimony on hearsay grounds. 8 25 Where a defendant in a criminal case has forfeited an error by failing to object, this court may remedy the error only in the most exceptional cases. 9 The Supreme Court has instructed that in such an exceptional case, the defendant has the burden to show that there is clear or obvious error and that it affects substantial rights. 10 Further, even when the appellant has carried that burden, Rule 52(b) is permissive, not mandatory. If the forfeited error is 'plain' and 'affects substantial rights', the Court of Appeals has authority to order correction, but is not required to do so. 11 As the Supreme Court stated in Olano, 12 it is the standard articulated in United States v. Atkinson that should guide the application of Rule 52(b). To wit, the Court of Appeals should correct a plain error that affects substantial rights only if the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. 13 Thus, this Court's discretion to correct an error pursuant to Rule 52(b) is narrow. 14 26 Guided by the Atkinson standard, we decline to review Alaniz's challenge to the admissibility of Longoria's testimony on hearsay grounds. 15 Even assuming error that is plain, Alaniz has failed to show that the district court violated his substantial rights by relying on the testimony.