whether the Parole Board violated its rule as it relates to authenticating documents proffered as evidence. The pertinent provision in 92 CSR 13.9(d) of the Rules of the Parole Board states that: “(d) Notwithstanding any other rule, documentary evidence may be admitted for the truth of the matters set forth in the document if: “(1) The document was prepared by a person with direct knowledge of relevant facts and who is unable to appear to testify, providing the document is accompanied by an affidavit signed by the author attesting to the document’s authenticity and accuracy.” The evidence is clear that the proffered Interstate Compact Report offered by the State at the parole revocation hearing was not accompanied by an affidavit from parole officer a.Cmwlth. 638, 613 A.2d 688 (1992) (<HOLDING>). The record in this case reveals that the
holding that any reliance by the parole board on inadmissible hearsay did not violate due process holding that hearsay within a police report was inadmissible holding that a district court grievance committees reliance on a state courts findings without holding an independent hearing did not violate the attorneys due process rights holding doctors letter is inadmissible hearsay holding that doctrine does not violate due process