Opinion ID: 689615
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: U.S.P.O. Watkins's May 5, 1992 letter

Text: 14 Viers argues the Hearing Examiner's consideration of U.S.P.O. Watkins's May 5, 1992 letter deprived him of due process because the letter was inadmissible evidence and was not provided to him prior to the revocation hearing. 15 While proceedings determining revocation of parole do not merit the same level of rights due a defendant in a criminal proceeding, the termination of a parolee's liberty calls for some orderly process, however informal. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480, 482 (1972). [T]he process should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters, affidavits, and other material that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial. Id., 408 U.S. at 489. 16 Viers correctly argues he has a right to the disclosure of the evidence against him. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489. Viers's claim that the letter was not provided to him, however, is weakened by the fact that the letter was read to him by a probation officer at the preliminary interview. Further, the Commission also claims that a copy of the letter was sent to Viers in a packet of other materials. 17 Thus, the district court correctly held Viers failed to demonstrate the Commission violated his right to due process by admitting the letter as evidence or withholding the letter from him.