Balancing Confrontation Rights and Hearsay Reliability in Supervised Release Revocation Hearings
Introduction
United States v. Anthony Williams, decided April 7, 2025 by the Fourth Circuit, addresses the admission of out-of-court statements in a supervised release revocation hearing. Anthony Williams was on supervised release following a 1999 drug conviction. In March 2023, his former partner alleged that Williams strangled and assaulted her, causing bruising, a cut lip, and involuntary urination. At the delayed revocation hearing—held over eight months later—the government sought to introduce the complainant’s statements through police and probation-officer testimony, photographs, body-cam footage, and a completed strangulation evaluation form. Williams objected to the hearsay evidence, invoking his right to confrontation under Morrissey v. Brewer and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C). The district court admitted the evidence after applying the Fourth Circuit’s “good cause” and “reliability” balancing test. On appeal, Williams contended that the court abused its discretion; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Summary of the Judgment
The Fourth Circuit held that the district court properly applied the two‐step balancing test for hearsay in revocation proceedings. First, the government demonstrated “good cause” for the witness’s absence by documenting repeated efforts—calls, texts, emails, and a residence visit—to secure the complainant’s attendance. Second, the court found the out-of-court statements sufficiently reliable based on multiple indicia: consistency of the complainant’s account across interviews, corroborating photographs and body-cam footage showing injuries, metadata confirming the timing of photographs, and firsthand observations by law enforcement of strangulation signs. Because the balancing test tipped in favor of admissibility, the court did not abuse its discretion. Williams’s revocation was affirmed, and he received a 24-month prison term followed by 12 months’ supervised release.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
The decision relies primarily on Morrissey v. Brewer (408 U.S. 471, 1972), which established due-process protections—though reduced compared to a criminal trial—entitling a supervisee to confrontation and cross-examination unless good cause is shown. The court also invoked its own precedents:
- United States v. Doswell (670 F.3d 526, 2012): applies Morrissey’s framework to supervised-release revocation, requiring a balancing of confrontation rights against good cause and reliability.
- United States v. Ferguson (752 F.3d 613, 2014): elaborates that hearsay is barred absent any showing of good cause, and zero effort to secure a witness compels exclusion.
- United States v. Wheeler (130 F.4th 406, 2025): reaffirms the two-part test—first, good-cause for unavailability; second, a reliability assessment under the totality of circumstances.
Legal Reasoning
The Fourth Circuit emphasized that revocation proceedings are not governed by the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause or the Federal Rules of Evidence. Instead, Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) implements Morrissey: hearsay statements are presumptively inadmissible, but may be admitted if the court finds (1) good cause for the witness’s absence and (2) sufficient reliability to justify dispensing with confrontation. The district court correctly (a) documented repeated, varied attempts to contact the complainant (calls, texts, emails, in-person visit); and (b) assessed reliability by examining corroboration (injury photographs, body-cam video), consistency (same account to police and probation officer), spontaneity (immediate reporting), and absence of motive to fabricate. The weight of these indicia overcame Williams’s confrontation interest.
Impact
This ruling clarifies and reinforces the Fourth Circuit’s two-part framework for hearsay evidence in supervised release revocation proceedings:
- Government efforts to locate an absent witness need not be exhaustive in advance of an objection; post-hearing attempts may still support good cause if documented on the record.
- Reliability is a holistic inquiry: corroboration, consistency, spontaneity, and lack of fabrication motive all contribute.
- District courts must articulate the balancing on the record, demonstrating both prongs before admitting hearsay for truth.
Complex Concepts Simplified
Supervised Release Revocation vs. Criminal Trial: In a criminal trial, the Sixth Amendment guarantees confrontation and the Federal Rules of Evidence bar hearsay. In a revocation hearing, these stricter rules relax, but due-process still requires that out-of-court statements only enter the record if (1) the witness is truly unavailable despite good faith efforts to secure attendance, and (2) the statements are reliable.
Good Cause: A practical showing that the government tried—and failed—to get the witness to the hearing. Multiple contact attempts (phone, text, email, personal visit) documented on the record typically suffice.
Reliability: Not just one factor, but the overall trustworthiness of the statement. Key indicators include: corroborating physical evidence, consistency across tellings, timing close to the event, and no obvious motive to lie.
Conclusion
United States v. Anthony Williams establishes a clear, structured approach to hearsay in supervised release revocation hearings within the Fourth Circuit. By reaffirming that courts must conduct an on-the-record balancing of good cause for witness unavailability against the supervisee’s confrontation interest, and by detailing the multifactor reliability inquiry, the decision provides valuable guidance to practitioners. Its significance lies in preserving basic due-process protections while acknowledging the practical realities of revocation proceedings. Future courts will rely on this opinion to navigate the admission of absent-witness statements, ensuring the fairness and integrity of supervised release revocation hearings.
Comments