Title: Herring v. Gorczyk

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Herring v. Gorczyk  (2001-283); 173 Vt. 240; 789 A.2d 955

[Filed 21-Dec-2001]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                No. 2001-283

Christopher Herring                             Supreme Court

                                                On Appeal from
  v.                                            Rutland Superior Court

John Gorczyk	                                November Term, 2001

Richard W. Norton, J.
	
Matthew Valerio, Defender General, Seth Lipschutz, Prisoners' Rights
  Office, and Rebecca Boucher, Law Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier, for
  Plaintiff-Appellee.

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Douglas R.
  Marden, Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       SKOGLUND, J.   Inmate plaintiff filed a V.R.C.P. 75 petition for
  review of governmental  action challenging his conviction for a
  disciplinary rule violation.  Defendant, Vermont Department  of Corrections
  (hereinafter "DOC"), filed a motion for summary judgment.  The trial court
  denied  DOC's motion and granted summary judgment to plaintiff.  DOC
  appeals.  Because we hold that  plaintiff's due process rights at the
  disciplinary hearing were violated by the hearing officer's reliance  on
  statements of confidential informants without any independent assessment of
  the informants'  credibility, we affirm the lower court's decision.    

 

       Plaintiff is an inmate committed to the custody and control of DOC at
  Southeast State  Correctional Facility (SESCF).  Plaintiff was charged with
  a Major B#20 Disciplinary Rule violation  for "[p]ossession, introduction,
  or use of any alcohol, narcotics, depressants, stimulants,  hallucinogenic
  substances or marijuana."  A disciplinary hearing was held during which a
  hearing  officer reviewed: four unsworn reports authored by investigating
  officers concerning statements of  confidential informants, plaintiff's
  written statement, and an unsworn report by one investigating  officer
  summarizing the information contained in the confidential informant
  reports.  Under DOC  procedures, when confidential informant evidence is
  admitted at a disciplinary hearing, the hearing  officer must fill out
  "Appendix VI" forms.  These forms purport to encapsulate information 
  contained in the investigating officer's report, which in turn summarizes
  confidential informant  statements.  In keeping with procedure the hearing
  officer filled out four Appendix VI forms (FN1)  -  one for each
  confidential informant.  Each form identifies the investigating officer(s)
  who  interviewed the informant and requires the hearing officer to respond
  to the question: "[d]oes the  interviewer believe the confidential
  informant was a reliable source of information in the past?"  In  this
  case, the hearing officer responded affirmatively to the above question on
  all four forms.  Based  solely on the summaries of confidential informants'
  statements included in the investigating officers'  reports, the hearing
  officer found plaintiff guilty of a Major B#20 DR violation and sentenced
  him to  five days placement in disciplinary segregation, suspended for 30
  days for good behavior, and three  days loss of "good time."  No
  interviewing or investigating officer testified at the disciplinary 
  hearing. 

 

       Plaintiff timely appealed the decision to the SESCF Superintendent. 
  Among several  arguments, he claimed that "[t]he hearing officer did not
  make an independent finding of reliability  of the confidential statements
  against Mr. Herring."  The Superintendent denied the appeal, ruling  that
  "[t]here appears to be reasonable and credible information to lead one to
  conclude you were  guilty of the offense."  Plaintiff then filed a
  complaint pursuant to V.R.C.P. 75 challenging the  conviction.  Plaintiff
  argued below that DOC violated his due process rights (1) by providing 
  inadequate information from which to prepare a defense, and (2) because the
  hearing officer did not  make an independent finding of reliability of the
  confidential informants.  He advanced theories that  the confidential
  informants were likely acting out of retaliation, possibly jealousy, and
  that they were  possibly trying to deflect attention from their own drug
  trafficking activities.
 
       DOC moved for summary judgment claiming the investigating officers'
  reports contained  enough evidence to convict plaintiff by a preponderance
  of the evidence but, in the event the court  disagreed, the court need only
  find "some evidence," citing Superintendent v. Hill,