Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Gagnon v. Scarpelli

Supreme Court of the United States · 1973 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureProbation RevocationParole RevocationDue ProcessRight to Counselprobation revocationparole revocationdue process

Facts

Respondent pleaded guilty to armed robbery in Wisconsin, received a 15-year sentence, and had that sentence suspended while he was placed on probation for seven years. He was allowed to live in Illinois under supervision there, but the day after he was accepted for supervision, Illinois police apprehended him during a burglary and he admitted involvement after receiving constitutional warnings. Wisconsin revoked his probation on stated grounds that he associated with known criminals and was involved in and arrested for burglary, and he was incarcerated to serve the previously imposed sentence. He was given neither a hearing nor appointed counsel before revocation.

Issue

Whether a previously sentenced probationer is entitled to a hearing before probation is revoked and, if so, whether an indigent probationer or parolee has a due process right to appointed counsel at revocation hearings. More specifically, the case asked whether probation revocation is constitutionally different from parole revocation for due process purposes and whether counsel must always be appointed.

Rule

A probationer, like a parolee, is entitled under due process to both a preliminary and a final revocation hearing under the conditions specified in Morrissey v. Brewer. Appointed counsel is not constitutionally required in every probation or parole revocation case; instead, the need for counsel must be decided case by case in the sound discretion of the responsible state authority. Presumptively, counsel should be provided when, after being informed of the right to request counsel, the probationer or parolee makes a timely request based on a colorable claim either that he did not commit the alleged violation or that substantial justifying or mitigating reasons make revocation inappropriate and those reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Dana Mercer received a prison sentence for felony theft, but the judge suspended execution and placed her on probation for four years. Six months later, her supervising officer reported that she failed multiple drug tests, and the state corrections board revoked probation on the papers alone and ordered her imprisoned without any in-person proceedings.

If Dana seeks relief on due process grounds, which is the strongest argument?

Explanation. The majority held that there is no relevant due process difference between parole revocation and revocation of previously sentenced probation. Although revocation is not part of a criminal prosecution, it causes a serious loss of conditional liberty, so due process requires both a preliminary hearing and a final revocation hearing under Morrissey conditions.