Whether criminal defendants in probation revocation proceedings should be provided a more robust right to confrontation under the due process clause, similar to that provided in criminal prosecutions under Crawford v. Washington

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner Carlos Johnson is serving a fifteen-year Missouri state court sentence for the unlawful use of a weapon. Mr. Johnson entered a guilty plea to the offense and was initially placed on probation. After a probation revocation hearing in which the circuit court allowed, among other hearsay evidence, the video taped deposition of the state’s main witness who was available to testify, it revoked Mr. Johnson’s parole and executed his fifteen-year sentence. Under Missouri law, when seeking to challenge the revocation of probation, a defendant must seek habeas relief. The state circuit court, court of appeals, and Missouri Supreme Court each denied Mr. Johnson habeas relief. The question presented is: To guarantee fairness, should criminal defendants in probation revocation proceedings be provided under the due process clause with a more robust right to confrontation that is similar to that provided in criminal prosecutions under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)? -ii