Dist. Ct. did not err in revoking defendant's supervised release, even though it admitted during revocation hearing audio recording of defendant, during which defendant admitted to violation of one his terms of supervised release. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. erred in failing to conduct explicit "interest of justice" analysis under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C) prior to admitting audio recording into evidence, no such analysis was required, since probative statements in audio recording were defendant's own non-hearsay statements. Also, defendant failed to identify any interest he had in cross-examining interviewing officer in instant audio recording about date of interview, where: (1) there was no actual dispute that recorded interview took place during defendant's term of supervised release; and (2) interviewing officer was not "adverse witness" for purposes of Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C). Defendant further failed to allege that recording did not accurately capture his voice.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Supervised Release