List and discuss three significant decisions made by the Supreme Court that have provided procedural safeguards that apply at proceedings to revoke probation?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The student may discuss three of the five cases discussed in the text. In Mempa v. Rhay, the Court ruled that the probationer is constitutionally entitled to counsel in a revocation-of-probation proceeding where the imposition of sentence has been suspended. Morrissey v. Brewer established that an informal inquiry must be held to determine where there is probable cause that a parolee has violated the conditions of parole. If so, a formal revocation hearing is required before parole can be revoked. Gagnon v. Scarpelli established that both probationers and parolees have a constitutionally limited right to legal counsel in revocation proceedings. A judge may deny counsel under some circumstances, such as when probation will be continued despite the violation. In Beardon v. Georgia, the Court ruled that a judge cannot revoke a defendant's probation for failure to pay a fine and/or make restitution. The state may not thereafter imprison a defendant solely because he or she lacks the resources to pay. Finally, with United States v. Granderson, the Court ruling helped clarify what can happen to a probationer whose community service is revoked. In this case, Granderson was eligible for a 6-month prison sentence but instead was given 60 months of probation. His probation was revoked and the statute he was sentenced under required that he serve one-third of his original sentence in prison. The trial court sentenced him to 20 months. The Supreme Court found that it would be unfair to force a probationer to serve more time in prison than he would have served if originally incarcerated and ruled the proper term should have been 2 months.