(a)(1) Preliminary interview or local revocation hearing: If any person who has given information upon which revocation may be based refuses, upon request by the Commission to appear, the Regional Commissioner may issue a subpoena for the appearance of such witness. Such subpoena may also be issued at the discretion of the Regional Commissioner in the event such adverse witness is judged unlikely to appear as requested.
(2) In addition, the Regional Commissioner may, upon his own motion or upon a showing by the parolee that a witness whose testimony is necessary to the proper disposition of his case will not appear voluntarily at a local revocation hearing or provide an adequate written statement of his testimony, issue a subpoena for the appearance of such witness at the revocation hearing.
(3) Both such subpoenas may also be issued at the discretion of the Regional Commissioner if it is deemed necessary for orderly processing of the case.
(b) A subpoena issued pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section above may require the production of documents as well as, or in lieu of, a personal appearance. The subpoena shall specify the time and the place at which the person named therein is commanded to appear, and shall specify any documents required to be produced.
(c) A subpoena may be served by any Federal officer authorized to serve criminal process. The subpoena may be served at any place within the judicial district in which the place specified in the subpoena is located, or any place where the witness may be found. Service of a subpoena upon a person named therein shall be made by delivering a copy thereof to such person.
(d) If a person refuses to obey such subpoena, the Commission may petition a court of the United States for the judicial district in which the parole proceeding is being conducted, or in which such person may be found, to require such person to appear, testify, or produce evidence. The court may issue an order requiring such person to appear before the Commission, and failure to obey such an order is punishable by contempt.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1976–2007 · leading case:
Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976).
Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976).
· cites it 2× “§ 4205 ; 28 CFR § 2.51 (1975). (b) The Board's second option was to dismiss the warrant and detainer altogether, which operated as a decision not to revoke parole, and under which the parolee retained both his good-time credit and credit for the time spent on parole.”
Jason Lynott v. Bill Story, Warden Fed. Corr. Inst., Ashland, Kentucky, 929 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1991).
“51-04 (emphasis added); see abo 28 C.F.R. § 2.51 . 4 . In addition to his fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment claims, petitioner set forth to the district court fifteen (15) other reasons why his revocation proceedings were constitutionally inadequate.”
Shepard v. Taylor, 433 F. Supp. 984 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).
“§ 4212 (a)(2)(D), nor applicable regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 2.51 , 41 Fed.Reg. 37330 (Sept.”
Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F. Supp. 2d 487 (D. Maryland 1998).
“See 28 C.F.R. Section 2.51(a)(2). 49 . In Belk , a case involving parole revocation by the Missouri State Parole Board, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that adverse witnesses must be produced unless "good cause” is found for not allowing cross-examination.”
Love, Leslie v. Sherrod, W.A., 247 F. App'x 35 (7th Cir. 2007).
“2d 484 (1972), the Commission’s regulations do not require it to subpoena witnesses if the parolee cannot show that their testimony “is necessary to the proper disposition of his case,” see 28 C.F.R. § 2.51 (a)(2); Hanahan v. Luther, 693 F.”
Woody v. Bogan, 832 F. Supp. 1109 (E.D. Mich. 1993).
“However, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Petitioner requested that the Parole Commission subpoe *1118 na his wife as a witness, or that he demonstrated that while her testimony was needed to adjudicate his case, she would not voluntarily appear.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.51(a)(1) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.51(a)(2) — 1 case
Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F. Supp. 2d 487 (D. Maryland 1998).
“See 28 C.F.R. Section 2.51(a)(2). 49 . In Belk , a case involving parole revocation by the Missouri State Parole Board, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that adverse witnesses must be produced unless "good cause” is found for not allowing cross-examination.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.