Court Opinion

ID: 9398730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 00:00:32.803091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.936204
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10185        Document: 00516769969             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/31/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                     May 31, 2023
                                       No. 22-10185                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Justin Ray Trammel,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:21-CR-111-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Ho, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Justin Ray Trammel brings a due process challenge to the district
   court’s revocation of his supervised release. He argues the district court
   violated his due process confrontation rights by allowing hearsay statements
   from his brother, the alleged victim of Trammel’s aggravated assault. Upon
   our review, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10185      Document: 00516769969           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/31/2023

                                     No. 22-10185

          Trammel pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least 500 grams of
   methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He was
   sentenced to concurrent terms of 135 months in prison and five years of
   supervised release. Two months after supervision commenced, Trammel’s
   probation officer sought to revoke supervised release, alleging Trammel
   violated the terms of his release by failing to submit to required drug testing,
   and—more relevant here—committing the Texas offense of aggravated
   assault with a deadly weapon.
          The alleged aggravated assault stemmed from an altercation between
   Trammel and his brother. The brother stated to a responding officer that
   Trammel had swung a baseball bat at his head and threatened to kill him. But
   the brother later retracted those statements, saying he lied to have Trammel
   removed from the property. He also filed an affidavit of non-prosecution.
          The district court held a revocation hearing where the Government
   sought to introduce a responding officer’s bodycam footage and testimony to
   prove Trammel’s involvement, which would incorporate the brother’s
   allegations without calling him as a witness. The district court allowed the
   evidence, over Trammel’s objection, concluding the reliability of the
   evidence outweighed Trammel’s confrontation interest.                 Trammel
   presented his theory of the facts through the testimony of an investigator for
   the Federal Public Defender and cross-examination of his probation officer,
   both of whom testified that Trammel’s brother recanted his prior statements.
   The district court found Trammel had committed the assault and revoked his
   supervised release.
          Trammel contends the court erred in finding good cause to admit the
   hearsay statements. “A claim that the district court violated a defendant’s
   right to confrontation in a revocation proceeding is reviewed de novo, subject

                                              2
Case: 22-10185      Document: 00516769969          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/31/2023

                                    No. 22-10185

   to harmless error analysis.” United States v. Jimison, 825 F.3d 260, 262 (5th
   Cir. 2016).
          The right to confrontation at a revocation hearing, which is rooted in
   due process rather than the Sixth Amendment, is “qualified” and the district
   court may make a finding of good cause to disallow confrontation. Id. at 261–
   62. “In evaluating good cause, the district court must weigh the defendant’s
   interest in confrontation of a particular witness against the Government’s
   proffered reasons for pretermitting the confrontation.” United States v.
   Minnitt, 617 F.3d 327, 333 (5th Cir. 2010). The Government “may prevail in
   the balancing inquiry when the hearsay testimony has strong indicia of
   reliability.” Jimison, 825 F.3d at 265.
          Trammel is correct that generally, due to aggravated assault being a
   Grade A violation of supervised release, his confrontation interest was
   “heightened” because his brother’s testimony “formed the core of the
   [Government’s] case.” United States v. Alvear, 959 F.3d 185, 189 (5th Cir.
   2020). See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1). But his interest was diminished because
   he “had ample opportunity to refute the Government’s evidence via
   methods other than cross-examination,” through the testimony of the
   investigator and probation officer. Minnitt, 617 F.3d at 333–34. See also
   Alvear, 959 F.3d at 189 (finding a heightened interest “lessened” where
   defendant introduced the alleged victim’s non-prosecution affidavit and
   another witness’s testimony directly refuted one of the alleged victim’s
   hearsay contentions).
          Trammel’s diminished interest does not outweigh the reliability of the
   evidence proffered at the revocation hearing. When it comes to determining
   the reliability of challenged hearsay statements, there is a spectrum of types
   of evidence that may be sufficient to meet the “strong indicia of reliability”
   standard. For example, the testimony of law enforcement officers alone is

                                             3
Case: 22-10185      Document: 00516769969          Page: 4   Date Filed: 05/31/2023

                                    No. 22-10185

   unlikely to be enough. See Jimison, 825 F.3d at 265 (“We have further noted
   that allowing such testimony through a police officer can be particularly
   damaging in light of an officer’s perceived credibility.”). But hearsay in the
   form of scientific testing is generally considered highly reliable. See id.
   (“[W]e have rejected appeals challenging the hearsay recounting of lab
   results in revocation hearings.”).
          Considering the totality of the evidence presented at the revocation
   hearing, we agree that the hearsay statements have strong indicia of
   reliability. The hearsay statements in this case were supported by other
   evidence. Most notably, bodycam footage from the officers that responded
   to the disturbance call, which showed the brother’s statements, his demeanor
   when he gave them, and his interaction with the officers. Video evidence
   “ordinarily is at the top of the evidentiary food chain.” Jimison, 825 F.3d at
   264. See also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 387–81 (2007) (recognizing that
   although courts must view evidence in the light most favorable to the
   nonmoving party at summary judgment, when that party’s version is clearly
   contradicted by videotape evidence, the court instead views the facts “in the
   light depicted by the videotape”). And here the district court found the
   footage corroborated the Government’s framing of events. Put simply, the
   district court did not err in finding good cause for forgoing confrontation
   because other evidence in the record indicated the statements had
   sufficiently strong indicia of reliability to overcome Trammel’s interest in
   confrontation.
          We affirm.

                                             4