United States v. Jones
Decision Date | 05 April 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 15–6119.,15–6119. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Cameron Taevon JONES, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Kyle Edward Wackenheim, Research and Writing Attorney (Paul Antonio Lacy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with him on the briefs), Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, appearing for Appellant.
Timothy W. Ogilvie, Assistant United States Attorney (Sanford C. Coats, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, appearing for Appellee.
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
MATHESON
, Circuit Judge.
The district court revoked Cameron Jones's supervised release. It relied on hearsay evidence from the Government's only witness at the revocation hearing. On appeal, Mr. Jones argues (1) Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C)
requires the district court to apply a balancing test to determine whether hearsay evidence may be considered for revocation, (2) the district court abused its discretion because it did not apply the Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) balancing test, and (3) this error is reversible. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we agree with Mr. Jones and reverse and remand to the district court for a new revocation hearing.
In 1998, Mr. Jones was convicted of interference with commerce by threat or violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951
, and of using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). In 2007, he was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
and sentenced to 71 months in prison and five years of supervised release. The court also ordered the prison sentence to run consecutively to the 24–month term of incarceration imposed as a result of the revocation of supervised release in the 1998 case.
The 2007 presentence report stated Mr. Jones was a member of the Rolling 60s Crips gang and goes by the alias C–Rag.
On August 29, 2014, Mr. Jones was released from prison and began serving his five-year term of supervised release for the 2007 conviction. On September 27, 2014, Mr. Miles, a Rolling 60s Crips member, was murdered. Two days after the murder, the United States Probation Office filed a petition to revoke Mr. Jones's supervised release, alleging Mr. Jones violated the following conditions: (1)"[t]he defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime;" (2)"[t]he defendant shall not possess a firearm, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon;" and (3)"[t]he defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity and shall no[t] associate with any person convicted of a felony unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer." ROA, Vol. I at 18–19. The petition asserted Mr. Jones violated these conditions by murdering Mr. Miles, possessing a firearm, and associating with Mr. Miles, a convicted felon.
After the Probation Office filed its petition, the district court held a revocation hearing on April 9, 2015. The Government presented one witness: Inspector Benavides, a homicide detective with the Oklahoma City Police Department who investigated the murder. He testified about Ms. Palmore's and Trenton Nguyen's statements given during witness interviews. He also testified about his investigation of the murder, Mr. Jones's arrest, and Mr. Jones's state murder prosecution. He testified as follows.
Inspector Benavides interviewed Ms. Palmore on the day of the shooting. He testified Ms. Palmore claimed to have seen the shooting and that she provided the following information:
During the interview, Inspector Benavides showed Ms. Palmore a photo lineup consisting of six headshots of different African–American men, including Mr. Jones. Ms. Palmore identified someone other than Mr. Jones as the shooter. Inspector Benavides had the following exchange with Mr. Jones's counsel on cross-examination:
Inspector Benavides testified that, although Ms. Palmore misidentified Mr. Jones during the photo lineup, she was adamant that Mr. Jones was the shooter. According to Inspector Benavides, Ms. Palmore told him "[she] could have been mistaken, [she] hadn't seen him in a while, [she] had just gotten out of prison, but she [was] 100 percent sure that [Mr. Jones] was the shooter." Id. at 40.
Inspector Benavides testified that Mr. Nguyen provided the following information:
Inspector Benavides testified further about his investigation of the shooting. When he arrived at the Cricket parking lot, he was briefed by the law enforcement personnel already on the scene. Mr. Miles's body was "in the parking lot on the passenger side [of the car]." Id. at 13. The body was outside the car on the ground because first responders had attempted to administer medical treatment. There were 11 shell casings on the ground on the driver's side of the car. The bullet holes in the car "were from the back to the front, indicating ... the [shooter] was walking up when the shots were fired." Id. at 15.
Two additional shell casings were found inside the car on the driver's seat. Inspector Benavides testified the shell casings inside the car indicated the shooter was close, possibly arm's length, to the driver's side window when he fired the shots.
The crime-scene investigator told him "two gentlemen" named "C–Rag and PK" were involved in the shooting. Id. at 15. Mr. Jones went by C–Rag; Mr. Jones's brother, Jacara Jones, went by PK.
The additional eyewitnesses who were in the parking lot at the time of the shooting "refused to talk to [the police]." Id. at 40–41.
Inspector Benavides also testified about Mr. Jones's arrest. The police arrested Mr. Jones at his home the morning after the shooting. A white two-door Monte Carlo was parked outside the house. The rear bumper on the passenger's side was damaged and it appeared there was "contact with the asphalt ... you could see the scratches and the scrape." Id. at 28.
After receiving a Miranda warning, Mr. Jones agreed to make a statement. He denied any involvement in the shooting and stated he arrived home the previous night around 12:30 to 1:00 a.m. He stated he got off work, went to the gym, and helped a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Gray
...had previously held that due process was satisfied by the applicability of a firmly rooted hearsay exception. (United States v. Jones (10th Cir. 2016) 818 F.3d 1091, 1099-1100 ; Curtis v. Chester (10th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 540, 545.)4 Thus, the distinction those cases draw between "documenta......
-
United States v. Jones
...from the hearing that violates the test that the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit adopted in United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091, 1098 (10th Cir. 2016). See United States v. Hernandez, 428 F. Supp. 3d 775, 788 (D.N.M. 2019) (Browning, J.)("When applying the balancing t......
-
United States v. Haymond
...Br. at 2–4.II"We review the district court's decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion." United States v. Jones , 818 F.3d 1091, 1097 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting UnitedStates v. LeCompte , 800 F.3d 1209, 1215 (10th Cir. 2015) ). "A district court abuses its discretion when......
-
State v. Mosley
...That 2002 amendment incorporated the balancing approach that circuit courts had begun to follow. See generally United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091, 1098–1100 (10th Cir. 2016) (discussing development of law and significance of Rule amendment). Presently all circuit courts of appeals but th......
-
Sentencing
...rejected inmate’s request for witness testimony at disciplinary hearing without documented reasons for rejection); U.S. v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091, 1100-01 (10th Cir. 2016) (due process violated when district court did not adequately weigh prisoner’s interest in cross-examination of hearsay te......