United States v. Trammel ( 2023 )

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