Gagnon V Scarpelli Case Study

The safeguards identified in Morrissey v. Brewer were extended to probationers. In the case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli, Gerald Scarpelli pleaded guilty to an armed robbery in Wisconsin. He was sentenced to 15 years, that was later reduced to probation. I would say he got it easy there instead of serving the fifteen years he got probation, which was later revoked. Scarpelli was then caught committing burglary with another person. He then committed to the felony crime. He claimed he confessed because it was made under extreme duress, which can be true but still if they caught him, he should have known to say the truth without forcing him to say it. The Wisconsin department of corrections revoked Scarpelli’s probation because of the violation of his

And I agree and disagree with this case because first he pleaded guilty and then he was caught again and he said he was under extreme duress to confess, but they had caught him and or maybe the accomplice confessed. It’s a tough one. And then there was a question on oyez that said, “is a previously sentenced probationer entitled to a hearing when his probation is revoked? if so is he entitled to a representation by an attorney?” I would say no, because it was revoked for a reason, but yes, because he got caught committing a new crime, so for that he should get a hearing because it is a new offense. And I think he was denied to a counsel, which violated his rights, but he should be entitled to one, not sure why they didn’t give him an attorney. But then he shouldn’t get one because why would he need one, if he already committed a crime, andhe got caught committing a new one, which makes no sense as to why get an attorney

The case of Mempa v. Rhay is about mempa pleading guilty to joyriding, and was placed on probation for two years and his imposition on his sentenced was deferred. Mempa probation was then later revoked because of his involvement in a burglary. Same as the scarpelli case mempa was not represented by an attorney and was not asked either if he wanted one appointed. Which is violating his constitutional rights, unless they had a reason for not giving him one, but that’s wrong. He later pleaded guilty to the burglary, the court revoked his probation and sentenced him to ten years in prison. In this case, I’m not sure why they revoked his probation, but there must be a reason. Mempa like Scarpelli filed for a habeas corpus, for the fact that his probation was revoked and that his right to counsel was denied and the writ was denied. And the question in this case is “does the absence of a counsel during a post-trial proceeding for revocation of probation or imposition of deferred sentencing violate the sixth amendment as applied to the states by the fourteenth amendment?” I say yes, because under the sixth amendment he has the right to counsel, and denying that is violating our rights. Also, the counsel helps the defendant in asserting his rights, such as the right to appeal, at the deferred