Opinion ID: 1390955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Practical Problem

Text: The problem which presents itself to the contestant in an administrative hearing is this: Keeping in mind that board members are assumed to be capable of judging fairly ( Fallon, supra); and Admitting that it is the contestant's burden to prove impropriety or bias ( Forest Oil Corporation v. Davis ; Elementary School Districts v. District Boundary Board, supra); and Once it is agreed that the guarantees of due process mandate a fair hearing and that a fair hearing contemplates impartial  fair  unbiased  just and reasonable fact-finders ( Fallon )  How, then, does the contestant go about determining whether or not the fact-finders who are to hear the testimony, consider the evidence and make the ultimate decision in his case have all of these beautiful qualifications? If the appellee here is guaranteed his constitutional rights of fair and impartial hearing and the burden of proving bias is his, but he is denied an access route along which he may travel in pursuit of these rights  then he has no rights. The constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing then becomes  for the appellee  a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma . .. [8]