Gagnon V. Scarpelli Case Brief

In the case, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, respondent Gerald Scarpelli pleaded guilty in July 1965, to a charge of armed robbery in Wisconsin. Therefore, Scarpelli was sentenced to 15 years in prison; however, Scarpelli's sentence was suspended, and he was placed on felony probation for seven years in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Public Welfare. (Leagle, 2017) After signing an agreement specifying the terms of his probation, Scarpelli was awarded a travel permit, which allowed him to return to Illinois, under the supervision of an interstate compact that he resides in Illinois while on probation with the Adult Probation Department of Cook County, Illinois. (Leagle, 2017) While on felony probation in Illinois, Scarpelli began associating

However, three years later Scarpelli file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus after he was put on parole by the Wisconsin Department. (Justia, n.d.) Apparently, the appeal was dropped; subsequently, to the revocation of Scarpelli's probation. Scarpelli argued that he could have proven his innocence in court if he had been awarded the opportunity to explain and answer the allegations about his involvement in the alleged burglary. (Justia, n.d.) Consequently, Scarpelli status as a parolee was sufficient custody to confer jurisdiction on the court, and that the petition was not moot; however, the revocation carried “collateral consequences.” (Justia, n. d.) The revocation of parole is not a part of the criminal prosecution; however, in the case, Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U. S. 128 (1967), the Court held that a probationer is entitled to be represented by appointed counsel at a combined revocation and sentencing hearing. (Justia, n.d.) Therefore, Scarpelli loss of liberty entailed him a serious deprivation requiring that a parolee is accorded due process. (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, n. d.) “The Fourteenth Amendment and the "fundamental principles of liberty and justice" which flow from the due process clause require that a probationer is given notice and hearing before the revocation of his probation” (Justia, n.d., n. p). Therefore, the Court held that a previously sentenced probationer is entitled

(Latessa & Smith, 2011) When the probation officer's view of the probationer's or parolee's conduct differs in this fundamental way from the latter's view, due process requires that the difference is resolved before revocation becomes final. (Justia, n. d.) "The Court concluded that counsel must be provided an indigent at sentencing even when it is accomplished as part of a subsequent probation revocation proceeding" (Justia, n.d., n. p.). The District Court held that revocation without a hearing and counsel was a denial of due process. (Justia, n. d.) Therefore, Scarpelli was released from prison in Wisconsin and was paroled to a federal detainer. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that probation cannot be revoked unless some aspects of the due process are observed when considering removing a probationer from probation. Therefore, following the rights and procedure must ensure that the probationer is informed or given written notice of a hearing and can attend the hearing to present evidence on his or her behalf, which entitles testimony against the probationer; therefore, confronting witnesses and the cross-examination of the witnesses. (Latessa & Smith, 2011) Finally, the probationer is entitle to counsel during any legal issues for comprehend. (Latessa & Smith,