Scarpelli pleaded guilty to armed robbery in July 1965 in Wisconsin. Scarpelli was then sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but the judge suspended the sentence and Scarpelli were placed on probation for a period of seven years. Then about a month later on August 6, 1965, Scarpelli and another man were caught in the process of committing burglary of a home (Gagnon v. Scarpelli. (n.d.). Scarpelli’s probation was revoked by the Wisconsin Department of probation for associating with known criminals and while associating with a known criminal Fred Kleckner, Jr. was arrested for burglary (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). (n.d.). Scarpelli’s probation was, without a hearing revoked and without, being provided a representation of counsel.
…show more content…
“The Supreme Court’s majority ultimately concludes that the same reasoning applies to probation revocation proceedings and that a defendant on probation is entitled to a preliminary hearing and a final revocation hearing” (Gagnon v. Scarpelli (n.d.).
“In the case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 441 U.S. 778 (1973) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parolees do have a limited right to counsel in a revocation proceeding and that hearing body must determine, on a case by case basis whether counsel should be provided” (Latessa & Smith 2011).
The Supreme Court also looked at whether an underprivileged probationer or parolee should be afforded due process representation by an appointed counsel at these hearings. The Supreme Court drew its opinion from Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). The probation officer has a dual responsibility to the wellbeing of his parolee and at the same time the safety of the community, but his concern for his parolee should dominate. In general, the parole officer role is to represent his parolee’s best interest as long as his parolee does not pose a threat to the public (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). …show more content…
The Supreme Court further stated that a court's order that places person on probation provides, that should a probationer failure to follow the conditions of their probation making a sincere attempt to avoid breaking the law, will be returned to complete their sentence already imposed (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973).
“The Supreme Court’s majority ultimately concludes that the same reasoning applies to probation revocation proceedings and that a defendant on probation is entitled to a preliminary hearing and a final revocation hearing” (Gagnon v. Scarpelli (n.d.).
“In the case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 441 U.S. 778 (1973) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parolees do have a limited right to counsel in a revocation proceeding and that hearing body must determine, on a case by case basis whether counsel should be provided” (Latessa & Smith 2011).
The Supreme Court also looked at whether an underprivileged probationer or parolee should be afforded due process representation by an appointed counsel at these hearings. The Supreme Court drew its opinion from Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). The probation officer has a dual responsibility to the wellbeing of his parolee and at the same time the safety of the community, but his concern for his parolee should dominate. In general, the parole officer role is to represent his parolee’s best interest as long as his parolee does not pose a threat to the public (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). …show more content…
The Supreme Court further stated that a court's order that places person on probation provides, that should a probationer failure to follow the conditions of their probation making a sincere attempt to avoid breaking the law, will be returned to complete their sentence already imposed (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973).