United States v. Rose: Refining “Good-Cause” and Reliability Standards for Hearsay in Supervised-Release Revocations

1. Introduction

United States v. Carl Rose, No. 24-2274 (3d Cir. Aug. 20 2025), concerns the revocation of a federal supervisee’s release for allegedly committing aggravated assault while on supervision. The District Court relied heavily on the victim’s out-of-court statements, admitted over hearsay and confrontation objections, to find the violation and impose a forty-eight-month prison term. On appeal, Rose argued that the admission of those statements violated both his Fifth-Amendment confrontation rights (as applied in revocation proceedings) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C).

The Third Circuit, in a precedential opinion by Judge Smith, affirms. The Court clarifies the framework first adopted in United States v. Lloyd, 566 F.3d 341 (3d Cir. 2009), and holds that:

• When hearsay offered in a revocation hearing possesses strong indicia of reliability, the supervisee’s confrontation interest is substantially diminished; and
• The Government can satisfy the “good-cause” prong of the Lloyd balance where it shows diligent, documented, but unsuccessful efforts to locate a witness—even when that witness is herself a fugitive from justice.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals affirms the District Court’s revocation order and forty-eight-month sentence. Applying the two-part Lloyd test, it concludes that:

1. The victim’s statements (identifying Rose and describing the stabbing) were corroborated by physical evidence, police body-camera footage, and consistent police testimony, giving them “strong indicia of reliability.”
2. Agent Flanagan’s testimony established the Government’s good-faith, multi-pronged, yet fruitless search for the victim, satisfying “good cause” for her absence.

Because Rose’s confrontation interest was outweighed, admitting the hearsay did not violate due process or Rule 32.1.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) & Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) – Groundwork for limited due-process rights (not full Sixth-Amendment rights) in parole/probation proceedings.
• Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C) – Codifies the conditional right to “question any adverse witness unless the court determines that the interest of justice does not require the witness to appear.”
• United States v. Lloyd, 566 F.3d 341 (3d Cir. 2009) – Articulates the balancing test weighing (a) the releasee’s confrontation interest and (b) the Government’s good cause for non-production of the declarant. Rose is essentially a fact-intensive application—and modest expansion—of Lloyd.
• Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) – Distinguishes testimonial from nontestimonial statements. The Third Circuit noted it but refused to let the “testimonial” label obviate the Lloyd analysis, emphasizing that Fifth-Amendment due-process confrontation is broader than the Sixth-Amendment standard.
• Other Circuit cases utilised to evaluate reliability (Peguero, Timmons, Rondeau, Martin) and good cause (Curtis v. Chester, Sutton).

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The opinion proceeds in three logical steps:

1. Identify the Governing Standard. Supervised-release revocations are not criminal prosecutions; thus the Sixth-Amendment Confrontation Clause and the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply. Instead, the limited due-process right, as codified in Rule 32.1 and refined in Lloyd, governs.
2. Gauge Reliability / Confrontation Interest. Reliability was found because:
   • Body-cam video captured the victim’s bleeding and distress immediately after the assault (“excited and distressed” state).
   • Her description of Rose (clothing, location) was immediately corroborated by police who found him at the municipal building.
   • Police recovered a bloody knife and firearm from Rose, matching her narrative.
   These factors offset weaknesses (unsworn, adversarial relationship, fugitive status).
3. Evaluate Government’s Good Cause. Agent Flanagan demonstrated:
   • Service attempts at three addresses.
   • Repeated unanswered phone calls.
   • Victim herself was a fugitive, complicating location efforts.
   The Court analogised to Martin and Curtis in holding that such documented diligence constitutes good cause.

Balancing the two sides, the Court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the hearsay and revoking supervision.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation and Doctrine

• Clarifies “good cause” in the Third Circuit. Diligent but unsuccessful efforts—especially when coupled with a witness’s fugitive status—now squarely meet the standard.
• Elevates Corroboration as a Reliability Touchstone. Objective, contemporaneous evidence (body-cam video, physical injury, recovered weapon) can heavily outweigh traditional reliability deficits (lack of oath, adversarial relationship).
• Nontestimonial vs. Testimonial is Not Dispositive. Even if statements are nontestimonial, courts must still perform the Lloyd balance. Practitioners can no longer rely on Bryant alone to bypass the analysis.
• Procedural Blueprint for District Courts. The opinion provides a step-by-step template to make specific findings on (a) reliability, (b) good cause, and (c) the overall balancing, thereby “insulating” revocation decisions from successful appeal.
• Potential for Circuit Alignment. By expressly agreeing with the Eighth and Tenth Circuits that diligent searches alone can suffice, the Third Circuit narrows inter-circuit tension and may influence the Supreme Court should the issue later arise.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Supervised Release vs. Parole/Probation

Supervised release is a post-incarceration monitoring period created under federal law. Violation does not trigger a new criminal conviction; it allows a judge, after a streamlined hearing, to impose additional imprisonment.

4.2 Hearsay

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In ordinary trials it is largely inadmissible unless an exception applies. In revocation hearings, however, hearsay can be admitted so long as due-process standards are met.

4.3 Confrontation Rights in Revocations

Because revocations are not full criminal prosecutions, the Sixth-Amendment Confrontation Clause does not apply in its entirety. Instead, a “lesser but still meaningful” Fifth-Amendment due-process right exists: the supervisee can confront adverse witnesses unless the court finds that the interest of justice justifies their absence.

4.4 The Lloyd Balancing Test

1. Reliability/Confrontation Interest. The more reliable the hearsay, the smaller the supervisee’s need to cross-examine.
2. Government’s Good Cause. Reasons may include witness unavailability, risk of harm, intimidation, or futility. Diligent search efforts can qualify.

Courts weigh these two factors; if Government’s reasons plus reliability outweigh the supervisee’s interest, hearsay is admitted.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Rose is significant because it refines the procedural safeguards governing supervised-release revocations in the Third Circuit. It underscores that:

• Corroborated hearsay can drastically shrink a supervisee’s confrontation right; and
• Thorough, documented efforts to find an absent declarant—especially a fugitive—constitute good cause for admission.

Going forward, prosecutors will rely on Rose to justify hearsay when witnesses cannot be produced, and defense counsel will scrutinize the diligence of the Government’s search and the quality of corroboration. District courts now possess a clarified roadmap for issuing revocation decisions that withstand appellate review.