Fred Sisto | Criminal Attorney | Ocean and Monmouth County

Call Us Today
732-898-3232

  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    ▼
    • Drug Crimes
      ▼
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      ▼
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      ▼
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      ▼
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    ▼
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      ▼
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    ▼
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    • Drug Crimes
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
Home >> Use of Hearsay at Violation of Probation Hearings (Part 3)

May 25, 2018 by Fred Sisto

Use of Hearsay at Violation of Probation Hearings (Part 3)

lady justiceThe Court continued: In addition to examining for reliability, a number of states also require a specific showing of good cause by the prosecution to explain the failure to call a witness and instead offer hearsay evidence. See State v. Marrapese, 409 A.2d 544, 548-49 (R.I. 1979) (construing State v. DeRoche, 389 A.2d 1229 (R.I. 1978)); State v. Brown, 600 S.E.2d 561, 564-65 (W. Va. 2004). In such circumstances, the explanation can be incorporated into the examination for reliability when determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the VOP charge.

In the federal sphere, a form of balancing test is utilized for determining the admission of hearsay evidence in VOP proceedings. In the seminal case of United States v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640, 642-43 (8th Cir. 1986), the Eighth Circuit established a balancing test for reconciling a probationer’s confrontation rights under Morrissey with the government’s reasons for not providing an opportunity for confrontation:

As is true of any balancing test, it is not possible to articulate fixed rules on what the government must show to establish “good cause” in every case. However, there are several factors which should be evaluated in examining the basis cited by the government for dispensing with confrontation.

First, the court should assess the explanation the government offers of why confrontation is undesirable or impractical. For example, the government might contend that live testimony would pose a danger of physical harm to a government informant, see Birzon v. King, 469 F.2d 1241, 1244 (2d Cir. 1972), or, as suggested by Gagnon, that procuring live witnesses would be difficult or expensive.

This balancing test would naturally weigh against the State in most cases where the violation is based on matters within the probation officer’s knowledge as opposed to a new criminal offense within a police officer’s knowledge. Most probation departments in New Jersey are located within a short distance of the superior courthouse or within the courthouse itself. Thus, the burden in producing the live witness with firsthand knowledge would be very light.

Filed Under: Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

Testimonials

Great!!! , got my case handled in the exact manner that I was told and would recommend to everyone else in need of legal representation.

Raumelis R   

I would highly recommend Mr. Sisto. He is very insightful and proficient, yet still down to Earth. Fred is great at communicating and breaking down the facts. But most importantly, he excels at getting results.

Bill K   

Fred is a stickler for detail and communicates with clients very, very well. He is smart and astute. I would recommend him unconditionally.

Tom O   

Thanks to Fred I have no criminal record whatsoever.

Luke A   
See More Testimonials

Recent Posts

  • The Juvenile Waive Statute and Retroactivity (Part 2)
  • The Juvenile Waive Statute and Retroactivity (Part 1)
  • Plain View and Lawful Vantage Points (Part 3)
  • Plain View and Lawful Vantage Points (Part 2)
  • Plain View and Lawful Vantage Points (Part 1)
  • CSAAS Testimony and Retroactivity (Part 5)
  • CSAAS Testimony and Retroactivity (Part 4)
  • CSAAS Testimony and Retroactivity (Part 3)

Recent Speaking Engagement

Site Disclaimer

Attorney Referral Fees

Frederick P Sisto has earned Lawyer Legion's recognition for Community Leadership

Law Office of Frederick P. Sisto

Point Pleasant Office*:
302 Hawthorne Ave, Suite 1
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742

Phone: 732-898-3232
Fax: 201-508-3393
*Office visits by appointment only.

Representing clients throughout all court jurisdictions of New Jersey.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION, NO ASPECT OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY