A Brief Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Morrissey V. Brewer

Summarize Morrissey v. Brewer
In 1972, the Supreme Court came to an agreement that the number of due process rights are to a person who is constitutionally entitled and that is straight related to potential that can outcome the rights. Coming from a criminal case these cases have the biggest amount of loss potential that the total of liberty may be forfeited by creating the liberty interest. The liberty interest is a concept that requires due process procedures whenever any type of freedom is at a major risk from the government action. Even though the criminal process represents the extreme end of the due process continuum. (Abadinsky, Howard. 197) During the case the United States Supreme Court’s involvement
with parole and cancellation. One of the major issues was from due process clause that the Fourteenth Amendment required that a state had afford a person the opportunity to be heard before getting parole. (Abadinsky,Howard. 197) While this case was going through the due process Morrissey was arrested at his hometown as a parole violator and held in a local jail. Morrissey was charged with the false drawing of checks in Iowa in the year of 1967. The Affected Probation and Parole
The court ruled that the parole revocation did not occur but had a few inaccessible cases that were estimated by thirty-five and forty percent of all parolees and return to their prison.
Later on, during that time the court went to the state and collected the amount of numbers that were involved protection of the parolees rights. This is why in the case Morrissey v Brewer, Morrissey was being viewed by the Supreme Court which gave him the parole revocation process that had two types of process, the first process was the arrest of the parolee and a preliminary hearing and the second process was the revocation.(Abadinsky,Howard.198) The Supreme Court did make some recommendations dealing with the due process for the revocation hearing which included written notice for the parolees, disclosures to the parolee of evidence against the person, opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence, confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, neutral and detached by hearing the lawyers, and a written statement that the evidence relied on or against the reason for revoking parole.(Abadinsky,Howard.199) Also, the Supreme Court had stated that during a revocation hearing the parolee must have an opportunity to be heard and to show if the person that did not violate the conditions or had situations in justification were suggested by the violation without warrant revocation at that time. The revocation hearing must be presented within a reasonable time
after the parolee is taken into custody which happen when Morrissey was arrested. Revoking probation is a decision made by the judge while revoking parole is being held responsible of a parole board which is why the prison were being overcrowded by this violation. Morrissey impacted Gagnon v Scarpelli
In 1973, the Supreme Court made a similar decision which involved a probation violation the case was Gagnon v Scarpelli.
Scarpelli was found guilty in his case that he was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment but was held on probation for about seven years. He claimed that revocation of probation without a hearing and counsel was a denial of due process. Even though the Supreme Court ruled that in legal jargon , Scarpelli had a liberty interest “ Probation revocation like parole revocation is not a stage of criminal prosecution but does result in a loss of liberty.(Abadinskyt,Howard.199) The same interest that happen in the case of Morrissey v. Brewer because Morrissey had the due process rights during his case. The controlling case in probation violation, Gagnon v. Scarpelli found that probationers have liberty interest and are thus entitled to diminished due process rights. In Gagnon the Court held three entitled which are a notice of the violations, preliminary hearing to decide for a probable cause, and a revocation hearing to make a final decision. This is how Morrissey v.Brewer impacted Gagnon v.Scarpelli because of the liberty interest by having the due process rights for both of their
cases.