Although the Supreme Court required parole revocation hearings to provide at least rudimentary due process, the liberty of a parolee is viewed as "conditional," and it can be taken away (without a jury trial) if the government proves that the parolee probably violated a condition of parole. The right to confront a witness is essential to a fair trial, but confrontation is often limited or nonexistent at revocation hearings.

That no witness with firsthand knowledge of the crime testified during Page's revocation hearing didn't trouble the Texas authorities who revoked his parole. Nor were they troubled by the absence of physical evidence linking Page to the crime. While a victim of the attack had identified Page, he identified two other individuals at other times. The police detective who testified was certain of Page's guilt, and that seems to have been all the evidence that was needed.

And so Page sits and waits, having been denied parole a dozen times in the last twenty years, and wonders what his acquittal is worth.