What rights do I have during a parole revocation hearing?

The superior court judge cannot suspend or revoke your parole unless there is “good cause” (a good reason) to believe that you have violated your parole conditions.[692]

As a parolee, you have the following rights:

    The right to receive written notice of the alleged violation (the rule or law that Parole claims you have broken) and possible consequences, with enough information to allow you to prepare a defense and obtain evidence that can help explain or justify your actions.[693]
    The right to have Parole disclose any evidence against you (just like at trial).[694]
    The right to timely hearing of the charges — including a probable cause hearing and a formal revocation hearing (within 90 days if you were not granted bail).[695]
    The right to present witnesses and documentary evidence.[696]
    The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses who speak against your interest[697] You have a conditional right under the U.S. and California constitutions to cross-examine people whose statements are used against you in a parole violation proceeding.[698] BUT SEE NOTE BELOW!
    The right to a “neutral and detached hearing body” (meaning a fair and unbiased judge).[699]
    The right to receive a written statement of the decision, the evidence relied on, and the reasons for revoking parole.[700]

IMPORTANT! You may waive (give up) your right to a revocation hearing by admitting that you violated parole.[701] If you believe your rights are violated during the process or in a hearing, say something and tell your lawyer. If you are unsure if your rights have been violated, or if you don’t understand your rights, ask your lawyer or public defender. If you do not have a lawyer or public defender, call your local public defender’s office.

!

  1. 692

    Cal. Penal Code § 3063. Note: In Morrissey v. Brewer, the U.S. Supreme Court established the minimum due process requirements for parole revocation proceedings under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Cases since Morrissey have reaffirmed those rights and described them with greater detail.

  2. 693

    Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488-89 (1972); Vanes v. U. S. Parole Comm’n, 741 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1984) (due process violated by lack of notice of basis for parole violation charge); Rizzo v. Armstrong, 921 F.2d 855, 858 (9th Cir. 1990) (failure to give notice of consequences if parole revoked at hearing).

  3. 694

    Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 498, 92 S. Ct. 2593 (1972) (“As we said in another connection in Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496–97 (“Certain principles have remained relatively immutable in our jurisprudence. One of these is that where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact findings, the evidence used to prove the Government's case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue.”). See also People v. Moore, 34 Cal. 3d 215 (1983) (state has duty to preserve and disclose material physical evidence).

  4. 695

    Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 485 (1972); People v. Woodall, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1221 (2013) (probation revocation procedures that fail to provide probable cause hearing do not violate due process rights if full hearing occurs relatively soon or if preliminary hearing on any new criminal charges is conducted). See also Cal. Penal Code § 1381.5; Gonzalez v. Superior Court, 166 Cal. App. 4th 922 (2008).

  5. 696

    See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488-89 (1972). You can subpoena and present witnesses and documentary evidence to the same extent that the State can (In re Carroll, 80 Cal. App.3d 22, 34 (1978)).

  6. 697

    Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488-89 (1972); Valdivia v Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir. 2010).

  7. 698

    U.S. Const. amend. VI; Cal. Const. art. I, § 15. Thus, upon your request, the people who gave the information that proves the parole violation charge should be made available for you to question them at the hearing, unless the judge determines that requiring the witness to appear would create a risk of harm. If the state has “good cause” (a good explanation or reason) for failing to present a witness and that good cause outweighs your right to confront the witness, the witness’s prior statements may be presented at the hearing, even if those statements were made outside of court. The more important the witness’s testimony is to the case, the stronger your right to confront and cross-examine that witness is. Courts may overturn a parole revocation if the hearing officer relies on unsworn hearsay (out of court statements) without determining the unavailability of the declarant or the reliability of the hearsay, or without considering the parolee’s interests prior to admitting the evidence. See, e.g., In re Miller, 145 Cal. App. 4th 1228 (2006).

  8. 699

    Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488-89 (1972).

  9. 700

    Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488-89 (1972).

  10. 701

    In re La Croix, 12 Cal. 3d 146, 153 (1974).