The better practice is to evaluate the need for court appointed counsel on a case by case basis based upon the following: Where probationer/parolee, after being informed of his right to request counsel, makes such a request based upon a timely and colorable claim that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or that, even if the violation is a mater of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present. In passing on a request for the appointment of counsel, the responsible agency should also consider, essentially in doubtful cases, whether the probationer appears to be capable of speaking effectively for himself. In every case in which request for counsel is refused, the grounds for such refusal should be stated succinctly in the record (casebriefs 2018). As a result of the 1973 case Gagnon v. Scarpelli, the Supreme Court decided that where liberty interests are involved, probationers are entitled to retain certain due process rights. Such rights include: Written notification of the alleged violations; preliminary or probable cause hearing at which a judicial authority will determine whether sufficient probable…
