PROBATION AND PAROLE - RIGHT TO ATTORNEY AT REVOCATION HEARING - ARE WE DRAGGING OUR FEET TOWARD DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

• NCJ Number: 17707
• Journal: Oklahoma Law Review Volume: 27 Issue: 2 Dated: (SPRING 1974) Pages: 279-284
• Author(s): R O MARSHALL
• Date Published: 1974
• Length: 6 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Oklahoma Press
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER THE PROBATIONER'S/PAROLEE'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, UPHELD IN THE 1972 SUPREME COURT RULING IN MORRISSEY V. BREWER, REQUIRES THAT HE BE AFFORDED THE RESISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

Abstract

DISCUSSED IS THE 1973 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN GAGNON V. SCARPELLI, WHICH RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN CERTAIN INSTANCES WHERE STATE PROBATION AND PAROLE AUTHORITIES DEEMED IT NECESSARY AS A MATTER OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS. THE AUTHOR POINTS OUT THAT SINCE GAGNON HELD THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRES AN ATTORNEY IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS, THE EQUAL PROTECTION DOCTRINE NECESSITATES APPOINTING COUNSEL TO REPRESENT INDIGENT PAROLEES/PROBATIONERS IN THESE LIMITED TYPES OF REVOCATION HEARINGS.