Opinion ID: 2453092
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: James's Due Process Rights Were Violated By The Failure To Record The Disciplinary Hearing.

Text: After initially reporting to the superior court that the tape recording of [James's] disciplinary hearing [was] no longer available,  (emphasis added) the assistant attorney general representing DOC later conceded that James's disciplinary hearing had not been recorded. [53] James contends that the failure to record his disciplinary hearing was a due process violation. The superior court never specifically addressed this argument and referred to the presence or absence of the tape as a collateral issue. DOC argues that James waived this issue by failing to raise it during the administrative proceedings. But James alleges that he asked the hearing officer why the hearing was not being recorded, and it is precisely because the hearing was not recorded that James cannot prove that he raised this issue at the administrative level. The McGinnis due process protections include the right to have the entire [disciplinary] hearing recorded for purposes of administrative appeal and potential further appeal to the superior court. [54] DOC contends that James's disciplinary hearing dealt with a minor infraction and so did not have to be recorded. But as we explained above, because James was accused of a low-moderate offense and punished with solitary confinement, under our case law this was a major disciplinary proceeding and James was entitled to all of the procedural protections identified in McGinnis. [55] We conclude that James had a due process right to have his disciplinary hearing recorded. But for us to reverse a disciplinary determination, an inmate must demonstrate both that a constitutional right was violated and that the violation prejudiced the inmate's right to a fair adjudication. [56] DOC argues that James did not indicate how the failure to record his disciplinary hearing was prejudicial to him, but we cannot agree. We have explained that the requirement of a verbatim record will help insure that administrators... will act fairly[,] will furnish a more complete and accurate source of information than the `written statement' requirement ..., [and] will assist in facilitating a more intelligent review of the disciplinary proceeding. [57] In this case James and DOC were ordered to prepare statements of the evidence and testimony presented at the disciplinary hearing. James's statement differed in significant aspects from DOC's version, including a discrepancy over whether James asked why Mathey and Richey were not present at the hearing and how the hearing officer responded to James's inquiry. Given that the primary purpose of recording a disciplinary hearing is to accurately preserve it for administrative appeal and appeal to the superior court, the failure to record the hearing in this case was prejudicial to James's right to a fair adjudication.