Discuss the two court cases in the text that advanced the due process rights of individuals on probation.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Today probationers and parolees are granted some due process rights, although like inmates there are restrictions on them that are not applicable to citizens not under correctional supervision. The first important case in this area was Mempa v. Rhay (1967). Mempa was a probationer who committed a burglary, which he admitted, 4 months after he was placed on probation. His probation was revoked without a proper hearing and without the assistance of legal counsel and sent to prison. The issue before the Supreme was if probationers have a right to counsel at a deferred sentencing (probation revocation) hearing. The Court ruled that under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment that they do because Mempa was being sentenced and the fact that sentencing took place subsequent to a probation placement does not alter the fact that sentencing is a “critical stage” in a criminal case. The Court further stated that probationers facing revocation should have the opportunity to challenge evidence by cross-examining state witnesses (typically only the probation officer), present exculpatory witnesses, and to testify his or her self. A further advance in granting due process rights to offenders on conditional liberty status came in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972). Morrissey was a parolee who was arrested by his parole officer for a number of technical violations and returned to prison without a hearing. Morrissey’s petition to the Supreme Court claimed that because he received no hearing prior to revocation he was denied his rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court agreed that when a liberty interest is involved certain processes are necessary (a liberty interest refers to government imposed changes in someone’s legal status that interferes with their constitutionally guaranteed rights to be free of such interference). The ruling by the Court in Morrissey noted that parole revocation does not call for all the rights due to a defendant who is not yet convicted, but that there were certain protections under the Fourteenth Amendment that they are entitled to. These rights were laid out by the Court as follows:
a. Written notice of the claimed violations of parole.
b. Disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him.
c. Opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence.
d. The right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation).
e. A “neutral and detached” hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers.
f. A written statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole.