|
|
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
|
|
|
<case id="50931" source="Oyez API" schema="simple-legal-case-xml-v1"><name>Gagnon v. Scarpelli</name><docketNumber>71-1225</docketNumber><term>1972</term><court><name>Burger Court (1972-1975)</name><identifier>burger4</identifier><href>https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger4</href></court><parties><firstParty role="Petitioner">John R Gagnon</firstParty><secondParty role="Respondent">Gerald Scarpello</secondParty></parties><dates><date type="argued">1973-01-09</date><date type="decided">1973-05-14</date></dates><citation><volume>411</volume><page>778</page><year>1973</year><href>https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14859</href><justia_url>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/778/</justia_url></citation><jurisdiction>Writ of <i>certiorari</i></jurisdiction><facts><html><p>After pleading guilty to armed robbery in Wisconsin, Gerald Scarpelli, was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, which was later reduced to probation. Scarpelli signed an agreement allowing him to reside in Illinois and was supervised by the Adult Probation Department of Illinois. Shortly after, Scarpelli was caught committing burglary with an accomplice. After being informed of his Constitutional rights, Scarpelli admitted to committing the felony, an admission he later claimed was made under extreme duress. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections revoked Scarpelli’s probation because of the violation and imprisoned him. He was not given a hearing. Two years later, Scarpelli filed a writ of habeas corpus and the district court held that revoking Scarpelli’s probation without a hearing and an attorney was a denial of his Constitutional right of due process. Gagnon, the warden of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, appealed and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts judgment. Gagnon appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>After pleading guilty to armed robbery in Wisconsin, Gerald Scarpelli, was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, which was later reduced to probation. Scarpelli signed an agreement allowing him to reside in Illinois and was supervised by the Adult Probation Department of Illinois. Shortly after, Scarpelli was caught committing burglary with an accomplice. After being informed of his Constitutional rights, Scarpelli admitted to committing the felony, an admission he later claimed was made under extreme duress. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections revoked Scarpelli’s probation because of the violation and imprisoned him. He was not given a hearing. Two years later, Scarpelli filed a writ of habeas corpus and the district court held that revoking Scarpelli’s probation without a hearing and an attorney was a denial of his Constitutional right of due process. Gagnon, the warden of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, appealed and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts judgment. Gagnon appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.</text></facts><questions /><conclusion><html><p>Yes, no. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 8-1majority. The Court held a previously sentenced probationer is entitled to a hearing when his probation is revoked. While a probation hearing is not part of the criminal prosecution process, the results of the hearing could cause the defendant to suffer a substantial loss of liberty, and therefore the defendant has the right to due process. However, the Constitution does not require that the defendant be provided proper representation. Rather, the court appointment of an attorney should be applied on a case-by-case basis. The Court concluded there was no need to create a new rule of appointing an attorney, and the lower courts should use their discretion when deciding if a court-appointed attorney was necessary.</p>
|
|
|
<p>Justice William O. Douglas wrote a dissent in which he argued that court-appointed counsel was necessary to ensure the defendant was afforded due process</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>Yes, no. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 8-1majority. The Court held a previously sentenced probationer is entitled to a hearing when his probation is revoked. While a probation hearing is not part of the criminal prosecution process, the results of the hearing could cause the defendant to suffer a substantial loss of liberty, and therefore the defendant has the right to due process. However, the Constitution does not require that the defendant be provided proper representation. Rather, the court appointment of an attorney should be applied on a case-by-case basis. The Court concluded there was no need to create a new rule of appointing an attorney, and the lower courts should use their discretion when deciding if a court-appointed attorney was necessary.
|
|
|
Justice William O. Douglas wrote a dissent in which he argued that court-appointed counsel was necessary to ensure the defendant was afforded due process</text></conclusion><advocates><advocate for="for petitioner"><name>William A. Platz</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_a_platz</href></advocate><advocate for="for respondent"><name>William M. Coffey</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_m_coffey</href></advocate></advocates><decisions><decision type="majority opinion" winning_party="Gagnon"><description /><votes majority="8" minority="1"><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="2"><justice>William O. Douglas</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglas</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="4"><justice>Potter Stewart</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewart</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="6"><justice>Thurgood Marshall</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshall</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="3"><justice>William J. Brennan, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="5"><justice>Byron R. White</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_white</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="1"><justice>Warren E. Burger</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burger</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="7"><justice>Harry A. Blackmun</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmun</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="majority" vote="majority" seniority="8"><justice>Lewis F. Powell, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/lewis_f_powell_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="9"><justice>William H. Rehnquist</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_h_rehnquist</justice_href></vote></votes></decision></decisions><source><href>https://api.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1225</href><raw_file>D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1972_71-1225.json</raw_file></source></case> |
