×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Loss of Disciplinary Witness Testimony Okay
The court assumes that 600 days in SHU is a deprivation of liberty but dismissed the plaintiff's due process claim on other grounds.
The temporary loss of the taped testimony of a witness--the victim of the alleged assault--who was interviewed in the hospital did not deny due process, and in fact, now that it has been found, is evidence that defendants acted to protect the plaintiff's due process rights.
The claim that other witnesses were denied is unsupported by any evidence that the plaintiff asked for witnesses who were not called. The denial of a request to call another witness after the disposition was read did not deny due process.
Transferring the plaintiff to another prison during the hearing did not deny due process absent evidence that he was thereby denied the right to call witnesses.
Allowing an adverse witness to testify after having been present earlier at the hearing did not deny due process. The exclusion of witnesses is discretionary and this witness did not affect the result anyway.
The testimony of the assault victim that the plaintiff assaulted him is sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
The failure to provide misbehavior reports for the other inmates involved in the attack did not deny due process, since the plaintiff waived receiving them, and the hearing officer found it would be inappropriate to provide them but said he would review them carefully. See: Charles v. Coughlin, 985 F.Supp. 88 (E.D.N.Y. 1997).
The temporary loss of the taped testimony of a witness--the victim of the alleged assault--who was interviewed in the hospital did not deny due process, and in fact, now that it has been found, is evidence that defendants acted to protect the plaintiff's due process rights.
The claim that other witnesses were denied is unsupported by any evidence that the plaintiff asked for witnesses who were not called. The denial of a request to call another witness after the disposition was read did not deny due process.
Transferring the plaintiff to another prison during the hearing did not deny due process absent evidence that he was thereby denied the right to call witnesses.
Allowing an adverse witness to testify after having been present earlier at the hearing did not deny due process. The exclusion of witnesses is discretionary and this witness did not affect the result anyway.
The testimony of the assault victim that the plaintiff assaulted him is sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
The failure to provide misbehavior reports for the other inmates involved in the attack did not deny due process, since the plaintiff waived receiving them, and the hearing officer found it would be inappropriate to provide them but said he would review them carefully. See: Charles v. Coughlin, 985 F.Supp. 88 (E.D.N.Y. 1997).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Charles v. Coughlin
| Year | 1997 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 985 F.Supp. 88 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) |
| Level | District Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |