# Morrissey v. Brewer > Supreme Court of the United States · June 29, 1972 · 408 U.S. 471 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425004 ## Case - **Full name:** MORRISSEY Et Al. v. BREWER, WARDEN, Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 29, 1972 - **Citations:** 408 U.S. 471; 92 S. Ct. 2593; 33 L. Ed. 2d 484; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 19 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brennan - **Judges:** Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Brennan, Marshall, Douglas - **Cited by:** 10,597 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled implicitly by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) — not on the Supreme Court's list. - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 5 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425004 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that minimum requirements of due process in parole revocation proceeding include “(a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b) disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documenta… - explaining that “the revocation of parole is not part of a criminal prosecution, and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to parole revocations” and that “[Revocation deprives an individual, not of the absolute liberty to which ev… - holding that the minimum requirements of due process for parole revocation hearings are: (i) notice of the claimed violations; (ii) disclosure to the parolee of the evidence against him; (iii) an opportunity to be heard in person and present evidence; (iv) the right to confron… - recognizing that “the revocation of parole is not part of a criminal prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to parole revocations” which “deprive[] an individual, not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is… - stating the decision to release is 9 “based on an evaluation[,]” the individual “can be gainfully employed and is free to be with family 10 and friends and to form the other enduring attachments of normal life,” creating “at least an 11 implicit promise” that the parole—or dec… ## Opinion text Mr. Justice Brennan, with whom Mr. Justice Marshall joins, concurring in the result. I agree that a parole may not be revoked, consistently with the Due Process Clause, unless the parolee is afforded, first, a preliminary hearing at the time of arrest to determine whether there is probable cause to believe *491 that he has violated his parole conditions and, second, a final hearing within a reasonable time to determine whether he has, in fact, violated those conditions and whether his parole should be revoked. For each hearing the parolee is entitled to notice of the violations alleged and the evidence against him, opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence, and the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, unless it is specifically found that a witness would thereby be exposed to a significant risk of harm. Moreover, in each case the decisionmaker must be impartial, there must be some record of the proceedings, and the decisionmaker’s conclusions must be set forth in written form indicating both the evidence and the reasons relied upon. Because the Due Process Clause requires these procedures, I agree that the case must be remanded as the Court orders. The Court, however, states that it does not now decide whether the parolee is also entitled at each hearing to the assistance of retained counsel or of appointed counsel if he is indigent. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), nonetheless plainly dictates that he at least “must be allowed to retain an attorney if he so desires.” Id., at 270 . As the Court said there, “Counsel can help delineate the issues, present the factual contentions in an orderly manner, conduct cross-examination, and generally safeguard the interests of” his client. Id., at 270-271 . The only question open under our precedents is whether counsel must be furnished the parolee if he is indigent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425004. Public record. Not legal advice.