Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Page 1
Non-Testimony at Parole-Revocation Hearing by Beating Victim Was Justified—Ninth Circuit
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that the right of confrontation by accusers was not breached by virtue of the government’s non-production as a witness at a parole revocation hearing the woman whom the defendant was accused of having beaten.
Fear of the defendant, Juan Jesus Chaidez, justified the absence of the woman, denominated in proceedings, “Jane Doe.” U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California revoked supervised release.
The government argued in its sentencing memorandum that “Defendant’s conduct, which included an assault of his girlfriend, while she was pregnant with their child (prior to a miscarriage), and in front of her then-11 year old son, warrants a statutory maximum sentence of 24 months.” White agreed, so ordering.
The judge found that Chaidez breached the terms of probation by violating Penal Code §273.5 which renders it a felony to inflict “corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition.” He assaulted his ex-girlfriend on Dec. 27, 2023.
Initial Hesitancy
Initially, White hesitated to permit the government to proceed without testimony by Doe. He said on Sept. 6, 2024, that he had “listened to the 911 call and has viewed the body-cam footage of the officers who responded to that call” and was inclined to admit statements by Doe as excited utterances, but continued:
“However, the Court concludes that on the record before it, the Government has not shown good cause for not producing Jane Doe. The Government has not represented that it made any effort to subpoena Jane Doe but was unable to do so. Further, there is no evidence in the record that Jane Doe ‘does not want to testify’ because she is afraid of Defendant….
“Therefore, unless the Government demonstrates good cause, the Court will not permit the Government to rely on her hearsay statements.”
On Jan. 16, 2025, White found that good cause had been established.
Ninth Circuit Opinion
Agreement was expressed in a memorandum opinion signed by Ninth Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Gabriel P. Sanchez, joined by Jennifer G. Zipps, chief District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. The judges said:
“[W]e find that Chaidez’s due process right to confront Doe was not violated by the admission of Doe’s statements at the revocation proceeding….We apply a balancing test to determine whether a releasee had a right to confrontation, weighing his interest in confronting the witness with the government’s good cause for failing to procure her.”
They continued:
“The district court properly found good cause for Doe’s absence as a witness and that her absence stemmed from genuine fear rather than governmental neglect….The probation officer personally saved Doe with multiple subpoenas and attempted several follow-ups. After the assault. Doe sought two restraining orders against Chaidez, changed residences, refused to provide her new address, and would meet the probation officer only in public locations.”
Note was made of threatening letters Chaidez had sent her which White found corroborated her stated fear.
The judges said that “Chaidez’s confrontation interest was lessened by the reliability of the evidence” in the form of the “excited” videotaped statements by Doe a short time after the beating.
The case is United States v. Chaidez, 25-1266.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company