Opinion ID: 6340581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Fishkill Statement

Text: Law enforcement officers made several attempts to contact J.D. in order to serve a subpoena on her for in-person testimony at the scheduled revocation hearing. On September 10, 2020, an FBI Task Force Officer attempted to serve a subpoena on her at her last known address. Instead of reaching J.D., the officer was met by one of her children, who stated that J.D. was in the hospital. A few 11 days later, on September 16, 2020, a Fishkill Police Officer attempted to follow up with J.D., who was again not present. Later that day, law enforcement finally reached J.D. on the phone, and she refused to appear at Peguero’s hearing. The next day, a Fishkill Police Officer again contacted J.D., who informed the officer “that she did not want to testify [against Peguero] because she had suffered seizures and anxiety from both incidents [of domestic violence] and was afraid of having to relive them and retrigger her medical issues.” Joint App’x at 174–75. Prior to Peguero’s scheduled revocation hearing on the contested specifications, the government, anticipating that J.D. would be unavailable to testify due to her unwillingness to do so, moved to admit the out-of-court statements she had made to law enforcement about the alleged assaults, including, as relevant here, the Fishkill Statement. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the Fishkill Statement was admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C), which provides that a defendant in a supervised release hearing is entitled to “an opportunity to . . . question any adverse witness unless the court determines that the interest of justice does not require the witness to appear.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C). In reaching this conclusion, the district court reasoned that there was “good cause” to admit the statement without requiring 12 J.D. to testify—namely, “her fear of suffering medical consequences and her history of abuse at the hands of [Peguero].” Joint App’x at 179. Additionally, the district court determined that the statement was sufficiently reliable to admit, as it was sworn, signed, and consistent with J.D.’s other statements as well as Peguero’s own statements. 4