The case of Morrissey vs. Brewer, is a 1972 case. The petitioner had been convicted of forgery and was out on parole. He got re-arrested because of a list of violations. The petitioner claimed that his parole was revoked without a hearing, hence his right to a due process was violated. The court of appeal affirmed the District court’s ruling that a parolee is technically in custody, hence was not entitled to a full adversary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed this and stated that a parolee’s liberty is within the protection of the due process. It also stated that the parolee required a preliminary hearing as well as another hearing to determine the facts of the violations and the consequence of the violation. The revocation hearing should be soon after the parolee’s arrest. After the evidence is produced the parolee should be given the opportunity to give evidence and ask questions.
In the Re Gault case, Gerald Gault was arrested on June 8, 1964 by the sheriff of Gilla, Arizona County. A neighbour had called the police alleging that Gerald had called her and used inappropriate and offensive language. The sheriff arrested Gerald without notifying his mother. Gerald stated that it was his friend who had called the woman and not him. Gerald’s preliminary hearing was the following day and it ended with the judge saying that he would think about it. Gerald was put in custody and he was released several days later without an explanation. He got a notice for a court date and the judge ordered that he should be put confined at the state industrial school until the age of 21. At the hearing, the prosecution did not give any evidence and no witnesses were called. In the state of Arizona, juveniles did not have the right to appeal and this was reversed in favour of Grant. The court held that juveniles should have the same rights in due process as adults and they should be given an opportunity to defend themselves.
After looking at the facts of these two cases, they have more similarities than differences. One similarity is that these two cases are about due process and the right to a fair hearing. In both the cases, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners have a right to a fair hearing and that they should be given an opportunity to call witnesses, give evidence and ask questions. Another similarity between these two cases is that they were tried at the Supreme Court and they both laid down the rules to be followed in future. One of the rules was that of the right of a parolee and the other was about how to deal with juveniles. Another similarity between these two cases other than the outcome is that the both the petitioners rights had been violated. In the case of Morrissey vs. Brewer, the rights of the parolee had been violated because he was put in custody without any trial. The rights of Grant had been violated because he had stayed in custody for many days and he was sent to confinement without being given the opportunity to defend himself.
One of the obvious differences between these two cases is that, in one case, the petitioner was an adult and the other case the petitioner was a minor. For delinquency cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof in the parolee’s hearing is lower than that of the delinquency hearing. Another difference between the two cases is that in the Morrissey case the parolee is entitled to two hearings while the juvenile is only entitled to one hearing before the decision is made.
References
Robertson, J. D. (2013, March 04). Habeas corpus: The most extraordinary writ.
