| Venue: |
SCOTUS
|
|
| Facts: |
Morrissey was convicted of forgery and out on parole. He got revocated
[sic] for a laundry list of violations (like buying a car under an
alias, etc). There wasn't any sort of hearing: just straight off
to jail. |
|
| Posture: |
After state remedies are used up, habeas to the district
court. The district court did not find a due process problem.
Case consolidated on appeal with another forger's complaint about
the same issue. Ct. App.: no problem here, affirmed. Cert
granted. |
|
| Issue: |
When a parole is revoked, to what sort of process is the parolee
entitled before getting put back in the slammer? |
|
| Holding: |
Reversed: due process requires more than just nothing. |
|
| Rule: |
There are six requirements:
- Written notice of the claimed violations
- Disclosure of the evidence of the violations
- Opportunity to be heard in person and to present evidence
- Right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (absent
special circumstances)
- A neutral and detatched hearing body (i.e., not the parole
officer)
- A written statement by the factfinders about the reasoning and
facts behind the revocation
|
|
| Reasoning: |
This is lots like Goldberg v. Kelly: a parolee may not
have the same rights as a non-convicted citizen, and restrictions
are proper, but the parolee, the penal system, and society all
have a real interest in not seeing revocation happen either
arbitrarily or mistakenly. |
|
| Dicta: |
Douglas, dissenting: parolees shouldn't be whisked off to prison
at the officer's whim-- they should remain at large while the
revocation hearing is pending. |
|