No. 25-6168

Carl Rose v. United States

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2025-11-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: confrontation-clause criminal-procedure due-process hearsay-evidence revocation-hearing supervised-release
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2026-01-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Due Process Clause and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C) require a district court to conduct an on-the-record balancing of confrontation interests before admitting hearsay at a supervised-release revocation hearing

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

This case involves an important issue in which there is a split of authority in the lower courts regarding whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room of a non -registered guest. This case implicates precisely this issue. The questions presented are: Whether the Due Process Clause and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C) require a district court, before admitting hearsay at a supervised -release revocation hearing, to conduct an on -the-record balancing of the releasee’s confrontation interest against the government’s good cause for denying confrontation, with the reliabili ty of the proffered hearsay as a principal factor but not the only factor. Whether a district court may admit uncorroborated hearsay from an absent complainant at a revocation hearing based solely on a finding of government good faith or witness unavail ability, without specific good cause and without articulating why the releasee’s confrontation interest yields under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C). 2 CITATION TO THE OPINION BELOW United States v. Rose , 152 F.4th 153 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 202 5)

Docket Entries

2026-01-12
Petition DENIED.
2025-12-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-12-03
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-12-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-11-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 19, 2025)

Attorneys

Carl Rose
Vernon Z. Chestnut Jr.Law Office of Vernon Z. Chestnut, Petitioner
Vernon Z. Chestnut Jr.Law Office of Vernon Z. Chestnut, Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent