Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Appellee, v. Harvey C. Register, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. - 360 F.2d 689
Argued April 5, 1966 Decided April 15, 1966
Irvin B. Tucker, Jr., Raleigh, N. C., D. K. Stewart, Dunn, N. C., on brief, for appellant.
William S. McLean, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert H. Cowen, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before BRYAN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The revocation of Harvey C. Register's probation was justified, we think, and on his appeal from the consequent commitment, we affirm.
Chiefly, the grievance asserted by the appellant is the acceptance of certain hearsay testimony by the District Court in regard to his breach of the probationary terms. In this there was no error or infringement of Register's rights, and there was ample evidence without it to sustain the revocation. However, as the trial judge is quite aware, there can be injury if hearsay plays too great a role in the inquiry, and he will constantly be alert to the frequent untrustworthiness of such proof. Of course, the infractions admitted by the probationer may always be outlined for the Court in hearsay statements.
In the argument on appeal the question arose as to the adequacy of the notice to the probationer of the motion or request for revocation. The present order may not be disturbed on this ground, but it is suggested that always, whatever form the notice takes, a specification be included of the grounds upon which revocation will be sought.
Affirmed.