People ex rel. Maiello v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 65 N.Y.2d 145 (1985)
A statement obtained from a parolee in violation of their right to counsel may be admissible at a parole revocation hearing, even if it would be inadmissible in a criminal trial.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a statement obtained from a parolee after he requested counsel, but before counsel was present, was admissible at his parole revocation hearing. Maiello, on parole for robbery, was arrested and informed his parole officer of the arrest, admitting to parole violations despite his lawyer’s advice. The Court held that the statement was admissible at the revocation hearing, distinguishing between the rules of evidence in criminal trials and administrative proceedings like parole revocation hearings. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the hearing is to determine if the parolee violated the terms of parole, a determination distinct from guilt or innocence in a criminal trial.
Facts
Ralph Maiello was on parole after being convicted of robbery in the second degree.
He was arrested for attempted burglary and possession of a weapon.
Maiello’s Legal Aid counsel advised him to report the arrest to his parole officer and informed him that Legal Aid would represent him at any parole revocation hearing.
When reporting the arrest, Maiello informed his parole officer that his counsel advised him not to give any details.
The parole officer urged Maiello to speak, and he admitted to violating the conditions of his parole.
This admission was introduced at Maiello’s final revocation hearing.
Procedural History
The statement was admitted at relator’s final revocation hearing which resulted in a finding that he had violated the terms of his parole and his being remanded for one year or in accordance with any new sentence imposed.
The lower courts determined that Maiello’s statement was admissible at his final revocation hearing.
The case reached the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a statement obtained from a parolee, potentially in violation of his right to counsel, is admissible at a final parole revocation hearing.
Holding
Yes, because a parole revocation hearing is an administrative proceeding distinct from a criminal trial, and different evidentiary rules apply.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished between criminal trials and parole revocation hearings. It stated that revocation hearings are administrative proceedings to determine if a parolee violated the terms of parole, not to determine guilt or innocence as in a criminal trial. The Court relied on People ex rel. Piccarillo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 48 N.Y.2d 76.
The Court acknowledged that a violation of a constitutional right might have different consequences depending on whether the evidence is used in criminal or non-criminal proceedings. They cited People v. Ronald W., 24 N.Y.2d 732, holding that statements given to a probation officer without Miranda warnings were admissible in a probation revocation proceeding.
The Court distinguished People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 815, where statements made to a parole officer were deemed inadmissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution. This distinction highlighted that the use of the statement was restricted to the revocation hearing and not a new criminal prosecution.
The court explicitly limited its holding: “We are here not presented with the issue of the permissible uses, if any, of relator’s statements in other proceedings.”