The respondent, Gerald Scarpelli, a felony probationer was arrested after committing a burglary. The respondent's probation was revoked without a hearing and he was not represented by counsel. He filed a petition for habeas corpus and the District Court concluded that revocation of probation without a hearing and without counsel was a denial of due process. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The probationer was entitled to a hearing, but the State is not constitutionally required to appoint an attorney to indigent defendants at parole and probation revocation hearings.
The respondent pleaded guilty in July 1975 to a charge of armed robbery in Wisconsin. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but the sentence was suspended and he was placed …show more content…
The better practice is to evaluate the need for court appointed counsel on a case by case basis based upon the following: Where probationer/parolee, after being informed of his right to request counsel, makes such a request based upon a timely and colorable claim that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or that, even if the violation is a mater of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present. In passing on a request for the appointment of counsel, the responsible agency should also consider, essentially in doubtful cases, whether the probationer appears to be capable of speaking effectively for himself. In every case in which request for counsel is refused, the grounds for such refusal should be stated succinctly in the record (casebriefs 2018). As a result of the 1973 case Gagnon v. Scarpelli, the Supreme Court decided that where liberty interests are involved, probationers are entitled to retain certain due process rights. Such rights include: Written notification of the alleged violations; preliminary or probable cause hearing at which a judicial authority will determine whether sufficient probable …show more content…
Because a person's liberty is at stake, this high standard is required by the American judicial system. Other standards of proof apply to different types of cases (business dictionary 2018). The difference between the Gagnon I hearing and the Gagnon II hearing is the Gagnon I hearing is a pre-revocation hearing in which a probation officer must prove that probable cause existed to believe that a violation was committed.The standard of proof at a Gagnon I hearing is a probable cause standard which is low burden of proof. The purpose of the hearing is to protect the individual against unlawful detention. The hearing is informal and usually held in the adult probation and parole office. If probable cause is found at the conclusion of the Gagnon I and Gagnon II hearing is scheduled before a judge which will be the final determination as to whether you have violated the conditions of probation or parole. The judge at the Gagnon II will, in almost all cases, be the judge who originally sentenced you: with the only exception being if the judge has retired, passed away, or no longer a judge for whatever
The probationer was entitled to a hearing, but the State is not constitutionally required to appoint an attorney to indigent defendants at parole and probation revocation hearings.
The respondent pleaded guilty in July 1975 to a charge of armed robbery in Wisconsin. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but the sentence was suspended and he was placed …show more content…
The better practice is to evaluate the need for court appointed counsel on a case by case basis based upon the following: Where probationer/parolee, after being informed of his right to request counsel, makes such a request based upon a timely and colorable claim that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or that, even if the violation is a mater of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present. In passing on a request for the appointment of counsel, the responsible agency should also consider, essentially in doubtful cases, whether the probationer appears to be capable of speaking effectively for himself. In every case in which request for counsel is refused, the grounds for such refusal should be stated succinctly in the record (casebriefs 2018). As a result of the 1973 case Gagnon v. Scarpelli, the Supreme Court decided that where liberty interests are involved, probationers are entitled to retain certain due process rights. Such rights include: Written notification of the alleged violations; preliminary or probable cause hearing at which a judicial authority will determine whether sufficient probable …show more content…
Because a person's liberty is at stake, this high standard is required by the American judicial system. Other standards of proof apply to different types of cases (business dictionary 2018). The difference between the Gagnon I hearing and the Gagnon II hearing is the Gagnon I hearing is a pre-revocation hearing in which a probation officer must prove that probable cause existed to believe that a violation was committed.The standard of proof at a Gagnon I hearing is a probable cause standard which is low burden of proof. The purpose of the hearing is to protect the individual against unlawful detention. The hearing is informal and usually held in the adult probation and parole office. If probable cause is found at the conclusion of the Gagnon I and Gagnon II hearing is scheduled before a judge which will be the final determination as to whether you have violated the conditions of probation or parole. The judge at the Gagnon II will, in almost all cases, be the judge who originally sentenced you: with the only exception being if the judge has retired, passed away, or no longer a judge for whatever