context: A court's failure to perform this balancing test may be harmless if the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the defendant violated the terms of his supervised release. If admission of hearsay evidence violates due process, "the defendant bears the burden of showing that the court explicitly relied on the information;" the defendant must show "(1) that the challenged evidence is materially false or unreliable, and (2) that it actually served as the basis for the sentence."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 26 F.3d 113, 113
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that there is no significant conceptual difference between the revocation of probation or parole and the revocation of supervised release
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Taylor, 931 F.2d 842, 847 (11th Cir.1991) (quotation omitted) (discussing the admissibility of hearsay testimony in the context of a probation revocation hearing); see also Frazier, 26 F.3d at 113 (holding that there is no significant conceptual difference between the revocation of probation or parole and the revocation of supervised release).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 931 F.2d 842, 847
citation_b.parenthetical: discussing the admissibility of hearsay testimony in the context of a probation revocation hearing
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Taylor, 931 F.2d 842, 847 (11th Cir.1991) (quotation omitted) (discussing the admissibility of hearsay testimony in the context of a probation revocation hearing); see also Frazier, 26 F.3d at 113 (holding that there is no significant conceptual difference between the revocation of probation or parole and the revocation of supervised release).