# Gagnon v. Scarpelli

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 14, 1973 · 411 U.S. 778

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425286

## Case

- **Full name:** Gagnon, Warden v. Scarpelli
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 14, 1973
- **Citations:** 411 U.S. 778; 71 Ohio Op. 2d 279; 93 S. Ct. 1756; 36 L. Ed. 2d 656; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 70
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Douglas
- **Judges:** Powell, Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Douglas
- **Cited by:** 5,373 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 4
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425286

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a probationer whose probation is revoked must be accorded due process; specifically, he “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 …
- holding that a probationer whose probation is revoked must be accorded due process; specifically, he “is entitied 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 …
- holding that “A Gagnon I hearing is a pre-revocation hearing to determine if probable cause exists that a violation was committed. After this determination is made, a Gagnon II hearing is conducted where the Commonwealth is required to establish that the defendant did violate …
- holding that there is no difference relevant to the guarantee of procedural due process between revocation of parole and revocation of probation where sentence has been imposed previously because “[p]robation revocation, like parole revocation, is not a state of a criminal pro…
- explaining that “[probation revocation, like parole revocation, is not a stage of a criminal prosecution, but does result in a loss of liberty”; holding that probationers are entitled to the same due process protections as Morrissey specified for parolees

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting in part.
I believe that due process requires the appointment of counsel in this case because of the claim that respondent’s confession of the burglary was made under duress. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 498 (opinion of Douglas, J.).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425286. Public record. Not legal advice.