Whitehead: Corrections, 3rd Edition

Case Studies

Chapter 04: Community Corrections

Stacie Gray has served 10 years of a 20-year sentence for drug trafficking. While in prison she has completed an intensive drug treatment program and participated in group therapy and individual counseling. During her time, she has not committed any disciplinary infractions and is considered by many correctional officers to be a “model prisoner.” Stacie is up for parole and after the board reviews her record they grant her parole.

Stacie gets a job a local convenience store working third shift. It isn’t long before she starts hanging out with her old friends and starts using drugs again. She tests positive on a drug screen for marijuana. Her probation officer gives her an opportunity to go to rehab instead of going back to prison. Stacie accepts the offer. However, while in the rehabilitation center, she and another resident smuggle some marijuana into the facility. Stacie is subsequently kicked out of the program and the rehab counselor contacts her parole officer. The parole officer files to have Stacie’s parole revoked, and the judge grants the parole officer’s request. Stacie is sent back to prison to complete her sentence.

Stacie claims her due process rights were violated because she was not granted a preliminary hearing on the matter. In addition, she claims that she did not have the benefit of legal counsel and the court did not appoint her legal counsel.

Questions

If what Stacie alleges about the lack of a preliminary hearing is true, is her revocation constitutional under Morrisey v. Brewer?
Your Answer

Correct Answer

No, it is not constitutional because the significance of Morrissey was that it set forth minimum due process rights, including a preliminary hearing that must be held at the time of arrest and detention. It also created a two-stage proceeding in which the violation of probation or parole is examined first, and then a full hearing is held to determine the most appropriate decision for the offender. In other words, when it is determined that probable cause exists and the probationer actually committed the new offense, a second hearing takes place. This second hearing is more extensive and establishes whether the probationer’s status should be revoked and a punishment imposed relating to the violation of probation.
If it is true that Stacie did not receive legal counsel, is her revocation constitutional? Explain your answer.
Your Answer

Correct Answer

The issue of representation by counsel was addressed a year later in the Gagnon v. Scarpelli case. In 1965, Gerald Scarpelli pleaded guilty to the charge of robbery and was sentenced to prison for 15 years. The judge, however, suspended his sentence and placed him on probation for a seven-year period. A day later, Scarpelli was arrested and charged with burglary. His probation status was revoked without a hearing, and he was placed in a Wisconsin reformatory and given a 15-year sentence. Shortly before his parole, Scarpelli filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that his probation status was revoked without the benefit of counsel. He claimed that he was denied the right to due process. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled in his favor. The Court, referring to Morrissey v. Brewer, held that Scarpelli’s due process rights were violated because there was no revocation hearing
What are the minimum rights under Morrisey v. Brewer?
Your Answer

Correct Answer

The minimum rights handed down in Morrissey v. Brewer are:
1. There must be written notice of offender’s alleged violations.
2. Offenders are to receive full disclosures of the evidence against them.
3. When facing possible revocation, offenders have the right to present their cases in person and to present witnesses on their behalf.
4. The decisions about whether to revoke offenders’ probation are to be made by neutral and detached hearing bodies.
5. Once decisions are made, those making the decisions are to prepare and file written statements explaining the evidence on which they based their decision and the specific reasons for deciding to revoke the offenders’ probation.