Opinion ID: 335045
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Accuracy in the determination

Text: 28 The parole revocation hearing is a fact-finding process of extremely broad scope. 17 Among the factors that the Board can consider at that hearing, two of the most important from the viewpoint of the parolee-prisoners are mitigating factors attending the violation 18 and personal and social history in the community. 19 The parolee consequently may wish to learn of the Board's information on his behavior and, when appropriate, to challenge that information by presenting his own evidence and witnesses. 20 29 The Morrissey decision was grounded in part on the need to protect the fairness and integrity of the parole process; 21 and, as we have noted, express recognition was given in Gagnon v. Scarpelli to the importance of evidence in mitigation of an offense. 22 Delaying the hearing for the period involved in the intervening sentence may seriously prejudice a parolee's ability to present accurately his side of the story, whether or not a violation has been established conclusively. 23 To begin with, the passage of time can make it more difficult for the parolee-prisoner to obtain evidence and testimony bearing on both mitigating factors and reputation in the community. And even assuming that the necessary witnesses can eventually be located, there is the inescapable prejudice that accompanies impaired recollection. Since the prejudice that may be caused by delay will often be difficult to demonstrate at the time of the delayed hearing, we think the interest of the parolee-prisoner in a prompt hearing is entitled to considerable weight. 30 The Board suggests that its disposition will be more accurate if it is able to consider the parolee's conduct in the prison during his intervening confinement. It is our understanding that the Board retains this power in any event, for it may reconsider at any time a decision to revoke parole and, specifically, may alter its planned disposition because of interim prison behavior. 24 31 In addition to the evidentiary interests discussed above, the parolee validly may conclude that he has an interest in establishing the Board's opinion of his conduct and potential at the start of the intervening confinement, so that any later change in the disposition must be justified specifically by the institutional conduct.