Page 1
Probation Properly Revoked Based in Part on Unsworn Statements by Minors—Ninth Circuit
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Unsworn out-of-court allegations by a man’s teenage step-children were properly admitted at a probation-revocation/resentencing hearing, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded yesterday, rebuffing the contention that the right to confront witnesses was wrongfully denied.
In a memorandum opinion, signed by Circuit Judges Mark J. Bennett and Jennifer Sung and Senior Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon, an order by Superior Court Judge Michael M. Anello of the Southern District of California was affirmed in the case of U.S. v. Rayshan Thomas, 24-6126.
On July 26, 2023, Thomas, who had been convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, was released from prison. He was arrested on June 23, 2024, pursuant to a warrant in connection with an order to show cause why his supervised release should not be revoked based on allegations that he violated a restraining order by coming to his wife’s house and otherwise committing violations of the terms of probation.
Entering Wife’s Home
He allegedly entered the home through a window.
Inculpatory statements were made to the police by his wife’s 16-year-old daughter, denominated in the opinion “M1,” and a son, 15, dubbed “M2.” Three days after the arrest, Thomas’s lawyer made a motion asking for “the ability to cross examine adverse witnesses.” At the revocation hearing, held on Oct. 7, 2024, Thomas’s wife, Digna Reyes, tesified; her children were absent.
The following day, Anello revoked probation and sentenced Thomas to serve one year and four months in prison.
Ninth Circuit Opinion
The Ninth Circuit judges said in yesterday’s decision:
“There were many indicators that the children’s out-of-court statements were reliable. They could readily identify Thomas because he is their stepfather. M1 is the person who called the police. The children’s conversations with the police officer were recorded on camera. Both made their statements shortly after the police were called. The accounts were consistent. The officer took M1’s statement in a question-and-answer format.
“There were also other incidents similar to the one that the children reported, lending further credence to their statements. The district court previously found.”
The judges declared:
“Because the children’s statements were sufficiently reliable, the district court did not err in finding that there was adequate good cause to excuse their absence. The district court did not violate Thomas’s due process rights to confront witnesses against him by admitting and considering the children’s out-of-court statements.”
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company