FINDING THE HAPPY MEDIUM 

Written by CDR Evan Hudspeth

According to 33 CFR §1.07-55(d), “In receiving evidence, the Hearing 

Officer is not bound by strict rules of evidence. In evaluating the 

evidence presented, the Hearing Officer must give due consideration 

to the reliability and relevance of each item of evidence.”

When determining what evidence to provide for the Hearing Officer’s 

consideration in a case, it’s important to focus on the elements of 

each violation. Without careful thought, it is quite possible to 

provide either too much, or not enough, evidence and information. It 

is fine to tell the whole story, and surrounding circumstances may be 

weighed as mitigating or aggravating factors; including irrelevant 

information, however, can be unnecessarily burdensome and 

distracting for the Hearing Officer. The goal, for both the charging 

unit and the charged party, should be to find the happy medium.

More is not always better

Occasionally, alleged charges will stem from an incident that 

included an extensive investigation, and/or response operations by 

the Coast Guard. When the charging unit is compiling a case 

package for submission to the Hearing Office, it is more confusing 

than helpful to include everything available. Instead, consider the 

elements of the alleged violation, and what evidence is available that 

clearly shows that these elements have been met. Similarly, it would 

be more beneficial to the charged party if there were a clear focus on 

the elements of each violation and any mitigating or extenuating 

circumstances. 

A charged party responding to the allegations may be tempted to 

address all the finer details of the case file, pointing out minor 

discrepancies, and passionately offering personal opinions or 
conclusions about the case. To the Hearing Officer, whose job it is to 

make a decision based on the facts, such responses are usually less 

helpful than is evidence containing factual detail to support the 

finding the party seeks to prove. The charged party may want to: a) 

determine what evidence is available or obtainable that either 

clearly contradicts the Coast Guard’s evidence relating to the 

elements of the violation; or b) clearly present facts that are 

extenuating or mitigating, such as timely achievement of 

compliance. 

A little is probably not enough

Lack of evidence may render an argument or case less than 

convincing, or not very credible. It becomes difficult to make a 

decision if not enough evidence, or not enough of an explanation 

about how the evidence is relevant, has been provided. To the 

persons involved in a boarding or other incident, it may be obvious 

how evidence of a certain fact relates to the proof of an alleged 

violation. You should try to put yourself in the position of the 

Hearing Officer, who must understand what happened only from the 

evidence and explanations provided. Although we may consider 

ourselves to be knowledgeable and experienced in the matters before 

us, Hearing Officers are not mind readers. A brief explanation 

should not only provide the Hearing Officer with a clearer 

understanding as to why the evidence provided is relevant, but also 

why, if at all, it should be considered in defense, extenuation, 

mitigation, or aggravation. 

Not too little, and not too much, but just right... Hopefully with some 

forethought and common sense, both the charging unit and the 

charged party will be able to find the happy medium of evidence to 

provide in a case.