Essentially, there are two primary cases that established due process rights for probationers. Identify and explain each case and their role in the revocation process.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) and Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973). The Morrissey court ruled that parolees facing revocation must be given due process rights through a prompt informal inquiry before an impartial hearing officer. The court ruled that this be through a two-step hearing process when revoking parole. The reason for this two-step process is to first screen for the reasonableness of holding the parolee since there is often a substantial delay between the point of arrest and the revocation hearing. The initial hearing must be conducted by a neutral and detached party. This hearing does not have to be formal in nature. The hearing officer is tasked with determining whether there is sufficient probable cause to justify the continued detention of the offender. After the initial hearing is the revocation hearing. During this hearing, the parolee is entitled to the ability to contest charges and demonstrate that he or she did not, in fact, violate any of the conditions of his or her parole. The Morrissey court specified that the parolee must receive written notice of the claimed violation of parole, the parolee shall receive evidence against him or her, that the parolee have an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence, the right of the parolee to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the hearing body must be neutral and detached, and that the parolee shall receive a written statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole. Gagnon v. Scarpelli(1973) applied the standards or parolee revocation in Morrissey to probation revocation and noted that offenders on community supervision do not have an absolute constitutional right to appointed counsel during revocation proceedings.