×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Third Circuit: Prison Disciplinary Hearing Officer Must Examine Potentially Exculpatory Evidence
The Third Circuit held, twice in the same case, that it is a due process violation for a prison hearing officer not to examine documentary evidence that a prisoner charged with a disciplinary infraction believes will exonerate him, unless there are legitimate penological reasons for not doing so.
In 2005, while housed at the State Correctional Institute at Graterford, Pennsylvania prisoner Rodney Burns was issued a misconduct report by Thomas Dohman, Captain of Security at SCI Graterford, charging Burns with assaulting another prisoner. The report indicated that the charges were based on statements from two confidential informants, who Dohman believed were credible and reliable.
According to Burns, Dohman told him that a video surveillance camera recorded the assault and showed Burns to be the assailant.
At his disciplinary hearing, Burns requested production of the videotape and that the victim of the assault be called as a witness. The hearing officer subsequently conducted an in camera proceeding during which she interviewed both Dohman and the assault victim. The latter refused to testify. Dohman testified that the assault had not been recorded. Despite the conflicting representation made by Burns, the hearing officer made no attempt to view the videotape for herself.
When the disciplinary hearing reconvened with Burns present, the hearing officer found Burns guilty based on Dohman's vouching for the credibility of the two confidential informants. Burns was then confined to a restricted housing unit for 180 days. Additionally, he lost his prison job and had his prison account assessed for the amount of the victim's medical expenses arising from the assault.
Burns filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison officials violated his due process rights when, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, they assessed his prison account. In Burns v. Penn. Dept. of Corr., 544 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2008), the Third Circuit held that this assessment constituted the deprivation of a property interest sufficient to trigger Due Process protections.
In a second trip to the Court of Appeals, Burns argued that his due process rights were violated by the hearing officer's failure 1) to compel the assault victim to testify and 2) to personally view the videotape. The Court held that 1) institutional safety concerns outweighed Burns' interest in being able to call the victim as a witness, but that 2) "procedural due process is violated when a hearing examiner simply fails to view available evidence to determine its relevance and suitability for use at a disciplinary hearing." It granted Burns' request to order the misconduct report expunged from his records. See: Burns v. Penn. Dept. of Corr., 544 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2008). [See: PLN, March 2010, p.46]
Following remand, on May 26, 2009 the district court granted in part and denied in part motions for summary judgment filed by both Burns and the defendants. The court held that the Court is reluctant to mandate that a hearing officer must independently review all potentially relevant video evidence when an inmate claims he was told an incident was recorded. See: Burns v. PA Dept. of Corrections 642 F.3d 163 (3rd Cir. 2011).
In 2005, while housed at the State Correctional Institute at Graterford, Pennsylvania prisoner Rodney Burns was issued a misconduct report by Thomas Dohman, Captain of Security at SCI Graterford, charging Burns with assaulting another prisoner. The report indicated that the charges were based on statements from two confidential informants, who Dohman believed were credible and reliable.
According to Burns, Dohman told him that a video surveillance camera recorded the assault and showed Burns to be the assailant.
At his disciplinary hearing, Burns requested production of the videotape and that the victim of the assault be called as a witness. The hearing officer subsequently conducted an in camera proceeding during which she interviewed both Dohman and the assault victim. The latter refused to testify. Dohman testified that the assault had not been recorded. Despite the conflicting representation made by Burns, the hearing officer made no attempt to view the videotape for herself.
When the disciplinary hearing reconvened with Burns present, the hearing officer found Burns guilty based on Dohman's vouching for the credibility of the two confidential informants. Burns was then confined to a restricted housing unit for 180 days. Additionally, he lost his prison job and had his prison account assessed for the amount of the victim's medical expenses arising from the assault.
Burns filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison officials violated his due process rights when, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, they assessed his prison account. In Burns v. Penn. Dept. of Corr., 544 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2008), the Third Circuit held that this assessment constituted the deprivation of a property interest sufficient to trigger Due Process protections.
In a second trip to the Court of Appeals, Burns argued that his due process rights were violated by the hearing officer's failure 1) to compel the assault victim to testify and 2) to personally view the videotape. The Court held that 1) institutional safety concerns outweighed Burns' interest in being able to call the victim as a witness, but that 2) "procedural due process is violated when a hearing examiner simply fails to view available evidence to determine its relevance and suitability for use at a disciplinary hearing." It granted Burns' request to order the misconduct report expunged from his records. See: Burns v. Penn. Dept. of Corr., 544 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2008). [See: PLN, March 2010, p.46]
Following remand, on May 26, 2009 the district court granted in part and denied in part motions for summary judgment filed by both Burns and the defendants. The court held that the Court is reluctant to mandate that a hearing officer must independently review all potentially relevant video evidence when an inmate claims he was told an incident was recorded. See: Burns v. PA Dept. of Corrections 642 F.3d 163 (3rd Cir. 2011).
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
Burns v. PA Dept. of Corrections
| Year | 2011 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 642 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2011) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |