IMPACT OF MORRISSEY AND GAGNON ON PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS

• NCJ Number: 54925
• Journal: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 69 Issue: 2 Dated: (SUMMER 1978) Pages: 160-169
• Author(s): V O'LEARY; K HANRAHAN
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 10 pages
• Grant Number(s): D-120; 73-ED-99-0019
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice; National Institute of Corrections
• Corporate Author: Northwestern University
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

FINDINGS FROM SURVEYS OF PAROLE AUTHORITIES ARE REPORTED AND ANALYZED TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR PAROLE REVOCATION HEARINGS INDICATED IN THE MORRISSEY AND GAGNON DECISIONS.

Abstract

IN MORRISSEY (408 U.S. 471, 1972), THE SUPREME COURT SET ASIDE THE TRADITIONAL RIGHT VERSUS PRIVILEGE DISTINCTION IN PAROLE LITIGATION. THE COURT DECLARED THAT BECAUSE LIBERTY IS AT STAKE IN ANY PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS IT 'MUST BE SEEN AS BEING WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT. 'A TWO-STAGE PROCESS FOR REVOCATION OF PAROLE WAS THEN ESTABLISHED: (1) A PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD AT OR REASONABLY NEAR THE PLACE OF THE ALLEGED PAROLE VIOLATION TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE OR GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF PAROLE HAS OCCURRED, AND (2) A FINAL REVOCATION HEARING TO EVALUATE ANY CONTESTED FACTS AND DETERMINE IF THE FACTS WARRANT REVOCATION. THE HEARING IS TO BE CONDUCTED BY A 'NEUTRAL AND DETACHED' HEARING BODY, SUCH AS A PAROLE BOARD. GAGNON (411 U.S. 778, 1973) PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO SET THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A PAROLEE CAN HAVE A LAWYER IN A REVOCATION HEARING. IN 1976, THE NATIONAL PAROLE INSTITUTES ASKED 52 ADULT PAROLE BOARDS TO DESCRIBE THEIR REVOCATION PRACTICES, AND THE PAROLE BOARD OPINION SURVEY WAS MAILED TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND CHAIRPERSONS; IT CONTAINED A SET OF ITEMS CONCERNING ATTITUDES TOWARD SELECTED ELEMENTS OF THE MORRISSEY DECISION AND ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION AT REVOCATION HEARINGS. THE FINDINGS FROM THESE TWO SURVEYS GENERALLY SHOW THAT PAROLING AUTHORITIES HAVE HAVE COMPLIED WITH MORRISSEY AND GAGNON. THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE FROM THE OPINION SURVEY THAT MOVEMENT IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER DUE PROCESS PROTECTION IN PAROLE REVOCATION IS SUPPORTED BY A SIGNIFICANT GROUP OF BOARD MEMBERS. THE SURVEY PRACTICES YIELDED INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF INCREASED COSTS DUE TO THE NEW REVOCATION STANDARDS, AS THERE HAVE BEEN SHIFTS FROM PART-TIME TO FULL-TIME BOARDS, INCREASE IN BOARD SIZE, AND ADDITION OF PERSONNEL IN THE FORM OF HEARING OFFICERS. (RCB)