Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Gagnon V. Scarpelli

The Supreme Court case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), involved Gerald Scarpelli who was on probation in Wisconsin for armed robbery, but was found in violation of the conditions set for his probation, when he was charged with burglary in Illinois. Scarpelli had been originally convicted in July, 1965 after he was arrested for the armed robbery, whereas he had plead guilty to the crime. However, he was fortunate that he did not have to serve the fifteen years he was sentenced to, due to the Judge suspending his time and instead placing him on seven years of probation. Per standard practice for probation, the judge placed requirements and restrictions that were to be followed, in order for him to remain on probation and

Scarpelli was even granted special permission to serve his probation while living in the adjoining state of Illinois. Albeit was supervised probation, whereas he must maintain constant and regular check-ins with an assigned probation/parole officer, it was definitely a privilege for him. However, it was made clear by the court and understood by Scarpelli, that if he were to be found in violation of the court’s orders in any manner, he would be incarcerated. Unfortunately, Scarpelli was unable to abide by the court’s orders and in September of 1965, just after two months of being on probation, he was caught in the act of committing a burglary in Illinois. Scarpelli while being questioned about the crime by the police, not only confessed to this particular burglary, but also stated he had been associating with other known felons. Scarpelli was immediately taken into custody on probation violation. The justification for his incarceration was that he had consorted with known felons, and had been caught with a known felon while in the commission of a felony. Both individually were a violation of the conditions of

He stated that he had made his confession “under duress”, regardless of the fact that he was caught by the police in the commission of the crime. He also stated; that he had not been afforded a violation hearing, which was a violation of his constitutional rights, specifically the fourteenth amendment. Scarpelli was actually granted parole after filing the petition. His case was heard at the District Court and it was decided that due process had be violated and the Court of Appeals held up the decision. The case finally was made to the U.S. Supreme Court on 09 January 1973, with the Justices making their ruling on 14 May 1973. They ruled that Scarpelli had been denied due process and should have been given a violation hearing, and also been afforded a second affirmation hearing; and stated only if found in violation should he have been incarcerated. The Justices made to correlation with the rulings of a similar case one year prior and that case was; Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, in the case of a parolee. Pp. 781-782. The only real difference is that by hearing Scarpelli’s case they ruled that although a violation hearing must be set for the alleged violator, the court is not required to appoint counsel at no expense to the