Legal Document

411 U.S. 778 93 Supreme Court Reporter 1756 36 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 656 John R. GAGNON, Warden, Petitioner,v.Gerald or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 SCARPELLI. Number 71—1225. Argued Jan. 9, 1973. Decided May 14, Syllabus Respondent, a felony probationer, was arrested after committing burglary. He admitted involvement in the crime but later claimed that adminission made under duress and false. The probation of respondent, who not represented by an attorney, revoked without hearing. After filing habeas corpus petition, he paroled. District concluded revocation hearing counsel denial due process. Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. Due process mandates preliminary final hearings case probationer same conditions as are specified Morrissey versus Brewer, 408 471, 92 2593, 33 484, parolee. Pp. 781—782. 2. body conducting should decide each individual whether requires indigent parolee be counsel. Though State is constitutionally obliged to provide all cases, it do so where may have difficulty presenting his version disputed facts examination cross-examination witnesses presentation complicated documentary evidence. Presumptively, provided where, being informed right, requests counsel, based on timely colorable claim has committed alleged violation or, if matter public record uncontested, there substantial reasons justification mitigation make inappropriate. 738—791. 3. In every request for refused, grounds refusal stated succinctly record. Pacific KF135 P2 791. 454 Federal Reporter, 2nd 416, affirmed part, reversed remanded. William Atlantic Platz, Madison, Wis., petitioner. M. Coffey, Milwaukee, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This presents related questions previously sentenced entitled when and, so, appointed at such 2 * Gerald Scarpelli, pleaded guilty July 1965, charge armed robbery Wisconsin. trial judge him 15 years' imprisonment, suspended sentence placed seven years custody Wisconsin Department Public Welfare (the Department).1 At time, signed agreement specifying terms 'Travel Permit Agreement Return' allowing reside Illinois, with supervision interstate compact. On August 5, accepted Adult Probation Cook County, Illinois. 3 6, respondent apprehended Illinois police, had surprised one Fred Kleckner, Jr., course burglary house. apprised constitutional rights, Kleckner broken into house purpose stealing merchandise money, although now asserts statement September 1, were that: 4 '1. (Scarpelli) associated known criminals, direct regulations supervising agent's instructions; 5 '2. while associating criminal, namely involved in, for, . Deerfield, Illinois.' App. 20. 6 4, incarcerated Reformatory Green Bay begin serving which been judge. no time afforded 7 Some three later, December 16, 1968, applied writ corpus. petition filed, before acted upon, parole.2 found status sufficient confer jurisdiction court moot because carried 'collateral consequences,' presumably including restraints imposed parole. merits, held 317 F.Supp. 72 (ED Wis.1970). sub nom. Gunsolus Gagnon, 416 (CA7 1971), we granted certiorari. 921, 2490, 331 (1972). II 8 Two prior decisions set bounds our present inquiry. Mempa Rhay, 389 128, 88 254, 19 336 (1967), combined sentencing Reasoning required 'at stage criminal proceeding rights accused affected,' Id., 134, S.Ct., 257, stage, must even accomplished part subsequent proceeding. But this line reasoning does require one, trial. 9 Of greater relevance decision last Term 484 There parole prosecution. 10 'Parole arises end prosecution, imposition sentence. Revocation deprives individual, absolute liberty citizen entitled, only conditional properly dependent observance special restrictions.' 480, 2600. 11 Even though loss entailed serious deprivation requiring accorded Specifically, two hearings, arrest detention determine probable cause believe parole, other somewhat more comprehensive making decision. 12 Petitioner contend any difference relevant guarantee between probation, nor perceive one.3 revocation, like result liberty.4 Accordingly, hold parolee, hearing, supra.5 III 13 second, difficult, question posed right these hearings.6 answering question, draw heavily Morrissey. Our first point reference character As noted regarding 'purpose help individuals reintegrate society constructive soon they able. .' U.S., 477, 2598. duty attitude officer reflect purpose: 14 'While recognizes double welfare clients safety general community, large concern client dominates professional attitude. agent ordinarily defines role representing client's best interests long constitute threat safety.'7 Because officer's function much compel conformance strict code behavior supervise rehabilitation, entrusted traditionally broad discretion progress rehabilitation power recommend declare revocation. 16 Morrissey, recognized analytically distinct components: 17 'The step thus involves wholly retrospective factual question: fact Only determined did violate second arise: recommitted prison steps taken protect improve chances rehabilitation?' 479—480, 2599.8 18 toward reflects rehabilitative rather than punitive focus probation/parole system: 'Revocation is, anything, commonly treated failure supervision. While would inappropriate field never revoke, whole thrust probation-parole movement keep men working adjustment problems there, using resort treatment failed about fail.'9 20 exclusive benevolent attitudes those administer system successfully obscures modification likely take place once decided recommendation converted prosecutor convict, counsellor then surely compromised. 21 When view probationer's parolee's conduct differs fundamental way from latter's own view, resolved becomes final. Both accurate finding use discretion—the insure unjustifiably away certain neither unnecessarily interrupting successful effort imprudently prejudicing community. 22 It serve mandated hearings. notice violations opportunity appear evidence behalf, confront adverse witnesses, independent decisionmaker, written report 487, 2603. less summary consideration ultimate revoke mere determination cause, 'minimum requirements process' include very similar elements: 23 '(a) (probation or) parole; (b) disclosure (probationer against him; (c) heard person evidence; (d) cross-examine (unless specifically finds good confrontation); (e) 'neutral detached' traditional board, members need judicial officers lawyears; (f) factfinders relied revoking parole.' supra, 489, 2604. 24 These themselves protection ill-considered petitioner argues supplied. What argument overlooks effectiveness guaranteed some circumstances depend skills unlikely possess. Despite informal nature proceedings absence technical rules procedure evidence, unskilled uneducated well examining cross-examining offering dissecting complex 25 By token, think erred accepting respondent's contention indigents cases. rule appeal simplicity, impose costs collateral disadvantages regard likelihood particular contribution most convicted another charges him.10 And cases justifiable excuse convincing reason why appropriate disposition, mitigating kind often susceptible proof simple either investigation exposition 26 introduction will alter significantly If turn normally its counsel; lawyers, training advocates bound available arguments support their clients' positions contest vigor views. itself, aptly described 'predictive discretionary' factfinding, become akin trial, attuned needs self-consciousness quasi-judicial role, tolerant marginal deviant feel pressure reincarcerate continue nonpunitive rehabilitation. Certainly, decisionmaking prolonged, financial cost State—for State, longer record, possibility review—will insubstantial.11 27 modifications endured borne because, indicated above, issue can fairly trained advocate. rigid significant informality, flexibility, economy always sacrificed. 28 concluding, aware case-by-case approach prosecutions adopted Betts Brady, 316 455, 62 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595 (1942), rejected favor per se Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963). See also Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25, 2006, 32 530 We not, however, conclusion furnishing necessarily inadequate asserted varying types proceedings: critical differences trials both stakes preserving differences. 29 prosecutor; formal force; defendant enjoys number procedural lost raised; jury understandable untrained jurors. Short, adversary unique characteristics. hand, represented, prosecutor, orientation above; procedures employed; familiar practice derives, invariable attributes peculiarities 30 dispose altogether lawyer useful none arguable defense uncovered lawyer. Without denying force argument, answer deal here, limited crime.12 31 find new inflexible respect requirement think, rather, basis exercise sound state authority charged responsibility administering system. Although presence participation probably undesirable unnecessary remain fairness—the touchstone process—will expense probationers parolees. possible prudent attempt formulate precise detailed guidelines followed determining providing necessary meet applicable requirements. almost infinite variation, considerable allowed responsible agency said makes request, (i) upon liberty; (ii) that, justified mitigated inappropriate, otherwise difficult develop present. passing appointment consider, especially doubtful appears capable speaking effectively himself. IV return case. standards prescribed here revocations. remand, allow admission having creates sort situation provided. assertions admission, see 780, conclude assistance re-examined light opinion. outlined above instance 34 Affirmed 35 DOUGLAS, dissenting part. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions confession duress. 498, 2608, (opinion Douglas, J.). Court's order placing provided, among things, '(i)n event stand ready (sic) imposed.' 10. duly executed obligated 'make sincere avoid acts forbidden law ..' 12. Respondent initially paroled federal detainer arising conviction. subsequently released custody, remains Department. undoubted minor commentators agreed indistinguishable See, e.g., Van Dyke, Parole Hearings California: Right Counsel, 59 Calif.L.Rev. 1215, 1241—1243 (1971); Sklar, Law Practice Hearings, 55 J.Crim.L.C. P.S. 175, 198 n. 182 (1964). clear least (1972), denied process, reliance dictum Escoe Zerbst, 295 490, 492, 818, 819, 79 1566 (1935), 'act grace.' argues, addition, practical leave convicting State. Such arrangements pursuant compact States, Wis.Stat.Ann. § 57.13 (1957). Petitioner's brief June 30, 1972, total 642 parrolees incomplete statistics 1971, national 24,693 persons out-of-state Brief 21—22. 'Some amount disruption inevitably attends ruling. confident, remove undue strain hurdles compliance An additional comment warranted witnesses. greatest procuring perhaps thousands miles away. simply adequate alternative live testimony, emphasize intend prohibit conventional substitutes affidavits, depositions, Nor foreclose holding developing creative solutions difficulties left open 'whether retained indigent.' Since retain asked occasion situations furnish indigent. KF105 F3 Remington, D. Newman, E. Kimball, Melli Goldstein, Criminal Administration, Materials Cases 910—911 (1969). factors entering relate major evaluation, officers, overall social readjustment offender variables offender's relationship family, fulfillment obligations, extent cooperation assigned case, personal associations, and—of course—whether specific importance considerations, others entirely judgmental, illustrated empirical study disclosed sample studied, 34.5% violated release. S. Hunt, Decision: A Study Agents' Discretion (unpublished thesis file library University Wisconsin) (1964), cited Petitioner, Addendum 106. 7, 910. 3, 192 (parole), 193 (probation). scope problem occasioned suggested mid-1960's estimated average 20,000 adult revocations 108,000 year. President's Commission Enforcement Administration Justice, Task Force Report: Courts 56 (1967). Cf. re Gault, 387 87 1428, 527 establishing juvenile's delinquency which, denominated civil, functionally juvenile generally statute differently situated already-convicted higher degree protection. Winship, 397 358, 90 1068, 368 (1970) standard 'proof beyond reasonable doubt').

Classification Label: 0