ISRAEL SCHAWARTZBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEES; ISRAEL SCHAWARTZBERG, APPELLANT, V. WARDEN OF U. S. PENITENTIARY, LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the regulation prohibiting attorney representation at parole hearings and the questioning of a prisoner about other issues at such hearings do not violate constitutional rights.
Appellant, convicted of a federal crime, was denied representation by his attorney at a parole eligibility hearing. He was also questioned about other…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Schawartzberg was convicted on a federal charge and sentenced to two years imprisonment in 1966. The conviction was affirmed on appeal, sub nom., United States v. Kahn, 366 F. 2d 259 (2nd Cir. 1966) cert. denied, 385 U.S. 948, 87 S.Ct. 324, 17 L.Ed.2d 226 (1966).
When Schawartzberg became eligible for parole consideration, he requested the presence of his retained attorney at the parole hearing. This request was denied by parole officials and Schawartzberg appeared alone. Parole was denied.
Two identical actions were then initiated. A declaratory judgment was sought in the District Court for the District of Columbia and a habeas corpus petition was filed in the District Court for the District of Kansas. The District of Columbia action was transferred to Kansas for convenience of the parties.
The first contention of Schawartzberg concerns the exclusion of his attorney at the parole hearing. Department regulations prohibit representation “by counsel or by any other person” at a parole eligibility hearing. 28 C.F.R. § 2.16. Appellant has cited no authority nor have we found any which causes us to seriously question the constitutionality of this regulation.
Appellant’s other contention is that his constitutional rights were violated when he was accused and interrogated concerning other issues at the parole hearing. The inquiries made at a parole hearing are for the purpose of determining whether the prisoner and society would benefit from minimal physical custody and not to impose additional punishment for other offenses. Under such circumstances we cannot conclude that such questioning violated any constitutionally protected right. But cf. Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968).
Appellees’ motions to affirm are granted and the judgments are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scarpa v. U. S. Bd. OF Parole, 477 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
Bradford v. Weinstein, 519 F.2d 728 (4th Cir. 1974)
-
Ernie Lee Buchanan v. Clark, 446 F.2d 1379 (5th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- United States v. Kahn, 366 F.2d 259 (2d Cir. 1966)
- Zegers, Inc. v. Zegers, 385 U.S. 948 (U.S. 1966)
- Driscoll v. Toledo Blade Co., 385 U.S. 948 (U.S. 1966)