NCJ Number
15932
Journal
Oregon Law Review Volume: 53 Issue: 1 Dated: (FALL 1973) Pages: 57-79
Date Published
1973
Length
23 pages
Annotation
IN ITS 1972 RULING IN MORRISSEY V. BREWER, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.
Abstract
THE REVOCATION PROCEDURES SUGGESTED BY MORRISSEY INCLUDED A PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD WHERE THE PAROLEE FIRST WAS DETAINED AND A COMPREHENSIVE HEARING HELD AFTER THE PAROLEE WAS RETURNED TO PRISON. THE OREGON LEGISLATURE SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED THE PROCEDURES DEVISED BY THE STATE BOARD OF PAROLE BY REQUIRING THAT THE FACTS CONCERNING AN ALLEGED PAROLE VIOLATION BE DEVELOPED AT A SINGLE COMPREHENSIVE HEARING HELD WHERE THE PAROLEE FIRST WAS DETAINED AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF OF THE HEARING RECORD BY THE BOARD. THIS COMMENT ANALYZES WHETHER THE REVOCATION PROCEDURES DEVISED BY THE BOARD AND MODIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURE COMPLY WITH MORRISSEY'S DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS AND WHETHER THE PROCEDURES ACCOMPLISH THE OBJECTIVES OF DEVELOPING FULLY THE FACTS CONCERNING A REVOCATION MATTER AND ENABLING THE BOARD TO MAKE A CONSIDERED REVOCATION DECISION. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE BOARD AND THE OREGON LEGISLATURE HAVE DEVELOPED SEVERAL PROVISIONS WHICH ENHANCE THE PAROLEE'S BASIC MORRISSEY RIGHTS. THESE INCLUDE A LIMITED RIGHT TO COUNSEL, THE CREATION OF A HEARING RECORD, THE USE OF SUBPOENAS TO ASSURE THE ATTENDENCE OF IN-STATE WITNESSES, THE EXPANSION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE LOCAL HEARING, AND THE USE OF HEARING OFFICERS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE BOARD. HOWEVER, HE SUGGESTS THAT ADDITIONAL CHANGES SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED, SUCH AS THE REPEAL OF LIMITATIONS THE PAROLEE'S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, ALLOWING THE PAROLEE THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT ADVERSE WITNESSES OR THE RIGHT TO INSPECT DOCUMENTS, AND CONFINING THE PAROLEE IN THE AREA WHERE HE NORMALLY RESIDES, INSTEAD OF RETURNING HIM TO PRISON, PENDING THE BOARDS REVIEW OF THE HEARING RECORD. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)