The federal rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings.{footnote} [3762]  FRE 101, 1101(d)(3).{/footnote}

Hearsay

There is a division of authrity as to whether the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses applies to sentencing proceedings.{footnote}Holding right of confrontation inapplicable: United States v. Reid, 911 F.2d 1456, 1464 (10th Cir. 1990)(no right of confrontation as to hearsay).

Check State v. Gallagher, 554 A.2d 221 (Vt. 1988).

Contra United States v. Streeter, 907 F.2d 781 (8th Cir. 1990)(confrontation rights apply to hearing on presentence report); State v. Robinson, 796 P.2d 853 (Ariz. 1990).

See also United States v. Davis, 912 F.2d 1210 (10th Cir. 1990)(no violation of confrontation clause absent evidence that hearsay was inaccurate); United States v. Rodriguez, 897 F.2d 1324 (5th Cir. 1990)(confrontation rights severely restricted; hearsay admissible where good cause exists for not allowing confrontation and hearsay is corroborated).{/footnote}  See also PRESENTENCE REPORTS.  A defendant has a due process right not to be sentenced on the basis of materially incorrect information.{footnote}United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447, 92 S.Ct. 589, 591, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972).{/footnote}  Affidavits may be considered.{footnote}U.S.S.G. § 6A 1.3, comment (backg’d).{/footnote}  See also AFFIDAVITS.  Hearsay statements by unidentified informants are also admissible, where there is good cause for not revealing the informant’s identity and the statrements are corroborated.{footnote}U.S.S.G. § 6A 1.3, comment (backg’d); United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707, 713 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Reid, 911 F.2d 1456, 1464 (10th Cir. 1990).{/footnote}  See also INFORMANTS.

4. Other Criminal Acts

It has been held that evidence of criminal activity which resulted in an acquittal may properly be considered in sentencing.{footnote}U.S. v. Reese, 33 F.3d 166, 174 (2d Cir. 1994) (dicta?).{/footnote}