NCJ Number
10546
Date Published
1973
Length
45 pages
Annotation
SURVEY ON WAYS IN WHICH STATE PAROLE BOARDS ACROSS THE NATION WERE IMPLEMENTING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS.
Abstract
IN JUNE, 1972, THE SUPREME COURT DRASTICALLY REVISED THE PAROLE PROCESS BY ITS DECISION IN MORRISSEY V. BREWER. THE COURT DECIDED THAT CERTAIN DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE REQUIRED IN PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS - THE RIGHT TO AN INITIAL HEARING TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BEGIN THE REVOCATION PROCESS, THE RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL REVOCATION HEARING WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF CLAIMED VIOLATIONS, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN PERSON AND TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, A CHANCE TO CROSS-EXAMINE ADVERSE WITNESSES, AND A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REVOCATION. RESPONSES TO AN ABA QUESTIONNAIRE WERE RECEIVED FROM 45 JURISDICTIONS. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY ARE REPORTED FOR THE NATION AS A WHOLE. NO INFORMATION IS GIVEN ON THE PRACTICES OF INDIVIDUAL JURISDICTIONS. THE SURVEY REVEALED THAT THE PATTERN OF COMPLIANCE WAS HIGHEST WITH THOSE DUE PROCESS ELEMENTS WHICH ARE CERTAIN AND SPECIFIC, E.G., WRITTEN NOTICE OF CHARGES, RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES. PAROLE BOARD PRACTICES WERE FOUND TO BE DIVERSE ON ISSUES WHICH WERE LEFT OPEN FOR INTERPRETATION BY THE DECISION - THE PROMPTNESS OF THE REVOCATION HEARING, WAIVERS OF THE INITIAL HEARING, AND THE EVIDENTIARY STANDARD FOR REVOCATION. DATA ON THE AVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL FOR REVOCATION HEARINGS, AN ISSUE RESERVED BY THE COURT FOR FUTURE DECISION, INDICATED THAT AT LEAST A THIRD OF THE STATES ARE OPPOSED TO THE CONCEPT. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED) (SNI ABSTRACT)