NCJ Number
16651
Journal
Dickinson Law Review Volume: 79 Issue: 1 Dated: (FALL 1974) Pages: 177-188
Date Published
1974
Length
12 pages
Annotation
IN THIS CASE, THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT RULED ON THE PROPRIETY OF CONDUCTING PROBATION VIOLATION HEARINGS PRIOR TO A CRIMINAL TRIAL AND THE NECESSITY OF DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN PROBATION VIOLATION HEARINGS.
Abstract
ALSO CONSIDERED WAS THE TENSION BETWEEN THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS CREATED BY THE DEFENDANT'S CHOICE OF EITHER TESTIFYING AT A PRETRIAL REVOCATION HEARING (AND THEREBY RISKING THE POSSIBILITY OF SELF-INCRIMINATION) OR REMAINING SILENT, AND THEREFORE NOT FULLY DEFENDING HIMSELF AGAINST THE REVOCATION OF PROBATION. THE DEFENDANT URGED THAT POLICY DICTATES THAT REVOCATION HEARINGS BE DELAYED UNTIL AFTER THE CRIMINAL TRIAL TO CONSERVE JUDICIAL TIME AND MANPOWER REASONING THAT IF THE PROBATIONER WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY AT THE CRIMINAL TRIAL THERE WOULD BE NO GROUNDS FOR REVOKING HIS PROBATION AND THEREFORE NO NEED TO HOLD THE HEARING. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT NO PENALTY OF ANY KIND INCLUDING REVOCATION OF PROBATION, CAN BE IMPOSED UPON THE ACCUSED UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT, 'A PERSON IS PRESUMED INNOCENT OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL'. A FIVE-TO-TWO MAJORITY RULED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT ON BOTH ISSUES. THE COURT HELD THAT THE PRACTICE OF CONDUCTING PROBATION REVOCATION HEARINGS PRIOR TO A CRIMINAL TRIAL FOR THE SAME OFFENSE WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOWABLE, AND THAT THERE WERE NO OVERRIDING PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS PROHIBITING THE PRACTICE. MOREOVER, THE COURT, AFTER ADOPTING DUE PROCESS STANDARDS GRANTING PROBATIONERS RIGHTS SUCH AS NOTICE, HEARING, CONFRONTATION, AND CROSSEXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, RULED THAT AT THESE HEARINGS THE ADMISSION OF CONFESSIONS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF MIRANDA IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. IT FOUND THAT NO TENSION BETWEEN TWO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EXISTED IN THE FACTS ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE APPELLANTS HAD NOT TESTIFIED AT THEIR REVOCATION HEARINGS TO PROTECT THEIR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. THEREFORE, SINCE NO INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS FROM THE REVOCATION HEARING WERE ADMITTED AGAINST THEM AT THEIR CRIMINAL TRIAL, THEIR RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS NOT VIOLATED BY THE PRETRIAL REVOCATION PROCEEDING. HOWEVER, THE COURT REFUSED TO SPECULATE AS TO THE OUTCOME HAD SUCH REVOCATION HEARING STATEMENTS BEEN MADE AND USED AT THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL TRIAL THEREBY CREATING TENSION BETWEEN THE RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS AND THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)