Mandating the Jones Balancing Test Under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) in Supervised Release Revocation Hearings

Introduction

This commentary examines the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Martinez, 24-1467 (10th Cir. May 8, 2025). The appellant, Christopher Martinez, challenged the district court’s summary denial of his request—under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C)—to confront and cross-examine therapists and staff from his sex-offender treatment program at a supervised release revocation hearing. The key issue was whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the “Jones balancing test,” which weighs a defendant’s interest in witness confrontation against the government’s reasons for not calling the witness. The panel unanimously held that, although the court erred by skipping the test, the error was harmless.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s revocation of Martinez’s supervised release. It determined:

The Confrontation Clause does not govern supervised release revocations and due-process rights are minimal.
Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) grants defendants the right to “question any adverse witness, unless the judge determines that the interest of justice does not require the witness to appear.”
Per United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2016), courts must apply a balancing test to decide whether “good cause” exists to deny witness attendance.
The district court abused its discretion by denying Martinez’s confrontation motion with a one-line order and no balancing analysis.
Nevertheless, the panel concluded the error was harmless. Martinez did not show any realistic benefit from cross-examining the therapists, nor did he attempt to narrow his request or postpone the hearing until key witnesses were available. His treatment discharge was uncontested, internally consistent, corroborated by probation-officer testimony, and submitted under penalty of perjury.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972): Established that revocation proceedings afford minimal due-process protections.
United States v. Henry, 852 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2017): Confirmed that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause does not apply in supervised release revocations and that Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) provides a statutory procedure to call adverse witnesses.
United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2016): Articulated the required “balancing test” for Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C), weighing defendant’s confrontation interest against government burden.
United States v. Faunce, 66 F.4th 1244 (10th Cir. 2023): Reinforced the abuse-of-discretion standard for review of evidentiary decisions in revocation hearings.

These cases together define the landscape: revocation hearings are informal, involve minimal due process, and any denial of witness attendance under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) must be supported by a balancing of interests.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) Framework: Martinez invoked his statutory right to confront adverse witnesses. Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) requires a showing of “good cause” to deny such requests.
Requirement of the Jones Balancing Test: Jones mandates that courts weigh the defendant’s need to cross-examine against factors like witness availability, potential disruption, and the exculpatory value of live testimony.
Harmless-Error Analysis: Although the district court erred by issuing a summary denial without analysis, the panel examined whether that error affected Martinez’s substantial rights. It concluded it did not, because live testimony would not have changed the outcome: Martinez did not dispute the factual basis for the discharge, offered no concrete theory of bias or fabrication, and undertook no efforts to secure or narrow his witness list.

Impact

This decision clarifies two points for future supervised release revocations in the Tenth Circuit:

Court orders denying Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) motions must reflect a Jones-style balancing analysis on the record, not mere boilerplate language.
Harmless-error review will focus on whether the defendant articulated specific reasons showing how cross-examination could have altered the proceedings.

Practitioners should prepare concise witness lists, seek postponements if necessary, and spell out in advance the precise value of live testimony to avoid summary denials.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Supervised Release Revocation: A hearing to determine if a person under supervised release violated the conditions and, if so, whether to revoke it and impose imprisonment.
Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C): A procedural right allowing defendants to “question any adverse witness” at a revocation hearing unless the court finds good cause to excuse the witness.
Jones Balancing Test: A three-step inquiry weighing (1) defendant’s need to confront a particular witness, (2) whether live testimony is essential to fairness, and (3) the government’s burden in securing the witness.
Harmless-Error Review: Even if a legal mistake occurred, an appellate court may affirm if the error did not affect the outcome.

Conclusion

United States v. Martinez reinforces the procedural safeguards under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) in revocation hearings and underscores the necessity of applying the Jones balancing test on the record. Courts must articulate why an adverse witness need not appear, and defendants must clearly explain how cross-examination would produce a different result. This decision will guide practitioners and district judges to ensure that the minimal due-process requirements in supervised release revocations are met, while preserving judicial efficiency and respect for institutional burdens.