Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG C
I find it difficult to believe that someone had his parole revoked simply for making a phone call to someone.....Not saying that it didn't happen since I'm not privy to the case you're referring to, but that it's just difficult for me to believe that that was the sole reason for having his parole revoked.....Making a phone call is not a crime, and without more than that, they can't even prove that the guy didn't call a wrong number, which does happen on occasions.....Without more than that, they can't prove that he KNEW of said person's questionable character.....Further, without more than that, they can't even prove that HE was the one who made a phone call.....So my guess is that there is more to the story than your friend had his parole revoked because he made a phone call (or even a few phone calls) to a person of questionable reputation.....
|
Well, I hate arguing this kind of thing on the net and I'm going to try to be polite about it, but this advice is - quite frankly - pretty far off the mark. I feel compelled to comment before somebody reads it and does something stupid even though taking on a mod will probably result in me getting banned for life.
First off, this wasn't a "friend" of mine. It was a client for whom I was handling the revocation appeal. I can vouch for the case.
Second, your suggestion that a simple phone call isn't enough for a parole revocation is just plain wrong. You're correct in that making a phone call is not a crime. You're dead wrong in thinking that criminal activity is required in the context of parole or probation.
Parolees do not need to commit a crime in order to have their release revoked. They can go back to the house simply for violating the terms of release set in the parole order. Standard parole conditions don't even come close to criminal conduct. You can, in theory, have parole revoked for no better reason than not looking for a job or being late on a support payment. Violating the terms of parole send you back to the house whether the violation constituted criminal activity or not.
In this case the standard parole conditions mandated that the client could not "
telephone, correspond with or visit" any person which he knew to be "currently engaged in a criminal activity or enterprise". The client - who I admit was not the brightest bulb in the box despite his family's substantial wealth - phoned his old drug dealer 2 hours after being released. Drug dealer gets arrested one week later. Client's number is in the phone log. Case closed. Back to the house he goes. Simple as that.
I have not reviewed the the standardized parole terms of all 50 states but I'm willing to bet that similar, if not identical, conditions exist in a fair majority if not all. As Shyster pointed out, the Texas general parole conditions contain a blanket provision that prohibits contact with any person of "disreputable or harmful character". Making a simple phone call to a known criminal
is enough to shit-can you. It says so right on the front of the parole order.
Third, the burden of proof in a revocation hearing is far, far below that needed in a criminal proceeding. The board doesn't need "proof" of anything. The parolee is out on the "good graces of the state". If the evidence even suggests you violated your release conditions they can send you back.
Your suggestion that a phone call doesn't "prove" you purposely made the call, knew the receiver was a felon, etc, etc has almost no meaning in the context of parole or probation. Revocation hearings are not criminal trials. There is no standard of evidence. The burden of proof is nearly non-existent. The standard on appeal is whether the board acted arbitrarily or capriciously - and I have never seen a revocation overturned on that standard. The hearing officer and board can consider and weigh evidence in whatever manner they like so long as they provide basic due process.
In this case I was actually able to get the original revocation order overturned on appeal to the circuit court. Not because the cell phone log wasn't sufficient, but because the hearing officer didn't properly notice the kid's attorney and the kid showed to the hearing without counsel. (Counsel is an unqualified right at revocation hearings in that particular state so the revocation order was overturned on due process grounds.) It didn't matter in the end, though. They just re-set the hearing, did it right, found that the kid had placed the call to his old dealer based solely on the cell phone records, and sent him back to finish out his remaining six. He sits in his cell to this day where, fortunately, he doesn't have access to people on the net suggesting that it's OK to call his old drug buddies after release.
So there you have the whole story. A revocation hearing ain't a criminal proceeding. Post-conviction procedure is a whole different ballgame. If somebody who's out on supervision is surfing this thread please read the terms of your release and talk with your own attorney about it. As they say, the advice you get here is worth what you pay for it.
Cheers,
Mazo.
