NCJ Number
49535
Date Published
1977
Length
21 pages
Annotation
A COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORT, PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEDURES, IS UPDATED IN LIGHT OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S MORRISSEY V. BREWER DECISION (1972) AND OTHER CASE LAW.
Abstract
THE MORRISSEY DECISION HOLDS THAT PERSONS WHOSE PAROLES HAVE BEEN REVOKED HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF A SIGNIFICANT LIBERTY. THEREFORE DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS ARE NECESSARY IN THE FORM OF TIMELY PRELIMINARY AND FINAL REVOCATION HEARINGS, AND COUNSEL SHOULD BE PROVIDED ON REQUEST IN REVOCATION CASES IN WHICH THE PAROLEES MAINTAIN THEIR INNOCENCE OR WHEN THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING AN ACKNOWLEDGED VIOLATION. CHALLENGES TO THE TIMELY HEARING REQUIREMENT HAVE CENTERED ON SITUATIONS IN WHICH A PAROLEE OF ONE JURISDICTION IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT, AT LEAST FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS CONVICTED OF A NEW FEDERAL CRIME, THE PAROLEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO A PROMPT HEARING. IN MOST STATE'S THE PAROLEE CAN WAIVE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, AND SEVERAL COURTS HAVE HELD THAT A PRELIMINARY HEARING IS NOT NECESSARY IF THE PAROLEE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF A NEW CRIME. ALMOST EVERY RELEVANT COURT DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO PROBATION OR PAROLE PROCEDURES, AND SEVERAL COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DO NOT PRECLUDE REVOCATION OF PAROLE. ALTHOUGH COURTS GENERALLY WILL NOT LOOK INTO THE REASONS FOR REVOCATION, AN 'ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS' STANDARD DOES APPLY AND IN RARE CASES REVOCATIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND WHICH DO NOT SATISFY THAT TEST. UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMPACT, IF A STATE ACCEPTS AN OUT-OF-STATE PROBATIONER OR PAROLEE, IT AGREES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERSON'S SUPERVISION. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND GOALS ARE SUMMARIZED. RELEVANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE CITED. THE TEXT OF THE INTERSTATE PAROLE AND PROBATION HEARINGS ACT IS APPENDED. (KBL)