NCJ Number
13816
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 65 Issue: 1 Dated: (MARCH 1974) Pages: 46-61
Date Published
1974
Length
16 pages
Annotation
ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS AFFORDED DEFENDANTS WHO EXPERIENCE PAROLE OR PROBATION REVOCATION PROCEDURES.
Abstract
'MORRISSEY V. BREWER', DECIDED IN 1972, HELD THAT ALTHOUGH A STATE NEED NOT PROVIDE THE FULL PANOPLY OF RIGHTS DUE A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT TO A PAROLE VIOLATOR DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN RIGHTS, INCLUDING A HEARING, NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS, DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE, RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE HEARING BOARD'S DECISION AND REASONS, MUST BE PROVIDED. IN 'GAGNON V. SCARPELLI' IN ADDITION TO EXTENDING THE DOCTRINE OF 'MORRISSEY' TO PROBATION VIOLATORS, THE COURT FOUND NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT COUNSEL BE PROVIDED AT ALL REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS, BUT THAT IN CERTAIN FACTUAL SITUATIONS, DETERMINED ON A CASE BY CASE ANALYSIS, THE STATE MUST CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. THE ARTICLE REVIEWS SUBSEQUENT CASES IN ANALOGOUS SITUATIONS AND ARGUES THAT APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL SHOULD BE THE RULE, RATHER THAN THE EXCEPTION, IN REVOCATION SITUATIONS. PRESENT REVOCATION PROCEDURES IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM ARE PRESENTED, AS ARE REFORMS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED.