Greenholtz V. Inmates of The Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex - Background

Background

Nebraska had both mandatory and discretionary parole. Mandatory parole meant that the prisoner must be released when he had served the full length of his sentence, less any good-time credits. Discretionary parole meant that a prisoner who satisfied the state's criteria for being a good candidate for early release would be released in the discretion of the state's Board of Parole.

Under Nebraska's discretionary parole system, all prisoners were reviewed each year regardless of whether they were yet eligible for parole. At this initial hearing, the Board examined the prisoner's entire preconfinement and postconfinement record and considered any statements or letters the prisoner presented on his own behalf. If the Board determined at this initial hearing that the prisoner was not suitable for parole, then parole was denied and the prisoner was informed as to the Board's reasons for denying parole. If, however, the Board determined at the initial hearing that the prisoner was suitable for parole, then it scheduled a final parole hearing. At this final parole hearing, the prisoner was permitted to present evidence on his behalf and to be represented by private counsel of his choice. He was not, however, permitted to cross-examine witnesses or hear any evidence presented against him. The hearing was recorded. If the Board denied parole at this final hearing, the prisoner was furnished with a written explanation within 30 days.

Nebraska prisoners brought suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the Board's procedures denied them due process. The federal district court in Nebraska and the Eighth Circuit agreed. The Eighth Circuit held that, in order to satisfy due process, the State had to adhere to the following procedures:

1. Provide a full formal hearing for each inmate eligible for parole;
2. Notify the prisoner in advance of the hearing and notify him of the factors that the Board may use to reach its decision;
3. Allow the prisoner to appear in person before the Board and present evidence;
4. Maintain a record of the proceedings that is "capable of being reduced to writing";
5. Furnish the prisoner with a full written explanation of the facts on which the Board relied and the reasons for the Board's decision to deny parole.

The Supreme Court agreed to review the Eighth Circuit's requirements to determine whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required them.