new counsel on the day of the hearing was not an abuse of discretion. III. Next we address Redd’s objections to the introduction of United States Exhibits 1A-1F, the test results and chain of custody reports for the six sweat patches. Redd objected to the exhibits as hearsay and as a deprivation of his right to confront adverse witnesses. As an initial matter, we note that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in revocation hearings. Fed.R.Evid. 1101(d)(3) (“The rules ... do not apply in the following situations: ... Proceedings for ... granting or revoking probation ... ”). That is not to say, of course, that all hearsay is admissible. Rather, probationers and parolees enjoy due process and stablished in our circuit. See United States v. Reynolds, 49 F.3d 423, 426 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Zentgraf, 20 F.3d 906,
holding that it was reversible error for a trial court to fail to answer a jurys question on the burden of proof for two hours after which the jury returned a verdict holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error holding that failure to consider guidelines note in applying sentencing enhancement was reversible error holding that it was reversible error for a district court to fail to applying a balancing test before admitting oral hearsay testimony recounting a third partys allegations of sexual assault by the probationer holding that it was not reversible error for a trial court to fail to answer a jurys question for fifty minutes after which the jury returned a verdict