United States v. Bernadel, No. 06-3940-cr (2d Cir. April 25, 2006) (found here)
Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) provides that a person charged with a probation violation "is entitled to . . . question any adverse witness unless the court determines that the interest of justice does not require the witness to appear." The Second Circuit, in turn, held in United States v. Williams, 443 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2006) that in a probation-revocation hearing: (1) neither the Due Process Clause nor Rule 32.1 obliges a district court to perform a good-cause analysis with respect to a proffered out-of-court statement admissible under an established hearsay rule exception; but that (2) a court is "require[d] to determine whether good cause exists to deny the defendant the opportunity to confront the adverse witness" if no such exception exists.
In Bernadel, the district court relied on a probation officer's hearsay statements concerning probation violations in sentencing Bernadel to ten months imprisonment and two years of supervised release for an alleged probation violation. The Second Circuit, however, found that no hearsay rule exception existed for admitting that probation officer's testimony and that the district court, thus, "erred in failing to make a finding of good cause before admitting the probation officer's testimony." Thus, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its direction.