Gerald Scarpelli Case Summary
Gerald Scarpelli, pleaded guilty in July 1965, to a charge of armed robbery in Wisconsin. The trial judge sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment, but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation for seven years in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Public Welfare. At that time, he signed an agreement specifying the terms of his probation and a "Travel Permit and Agreement to Return" allowing him to reside in Illinois, with supervision there under an interstate compact. On August 5, 1965, the Adult Probation Department of Cook County, Illinois, accepted him for supervision.
On August 6, Illinois police, who had surprised him (Scarpelli) and one Fred Kleckner Jr., in the course of the burglary of a house, apprehended Gerald Scarpelli. After being told of his constitutional rights, respondent admitted that he and Kleckner had broken into the house for stealing merchandise or money, although he now asserts that his statement was made under duress and …show more content…
Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). There we held that the revocation of parole is not a part of a criminal prosecution. "Parole arises after the end of the criminal prosecution, including imposition of sentence. . . . Revocation deprives an individual, not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only of the conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special parole restrictions." Even though the revocation of parole is not a part of the criminal prosecution, we held that the loss of liberty entailed is a serious deprivation requiring that the parolee be remitted due process. Specifically, we held that a parolee is entitled to two hearings, one a preliminary hearing at the time of his arrest and detention to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a violation of his parole, and the other a somewhat more comprehensive hearing prior to the making of the final revocation
On August 6, Illinois police, who had surprised him (Scarpelli) and one Fred Kleckner Jr., in the course of the burglary of a house, apprehended Gerald Scarpelli. After being told of his constitutional rights, respondent admitted that he and Kleckner had broken into the house for stealing merchandise or money, although he now asserts that his statement was made under duress and …show more content…
Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). There we held that the revocation of parole is not a part of a criminal prosecution. "Parole arises after the end of the criminal prosecution, including imposition of sentence. . . . Revocation deprives an individual, not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only of the conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special parole restrictions." Even though the revocation of parole is not a part of the criminal prosecution, we held that the loss of liberty entailed is a serious deprivation requiring that the parolee be remitted due process. Specifically, we held that a parolee is entitled to two hearings, one a preliminary hearing at the time of his arrest and detention to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a violation of his parole, and the other a somewhat more comprehensive hearing prior to the making of the final revocation