Opinion ID: 1695245
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DOES THE FAILURE TO ALLOW APPELLANT RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION VIOLATE THE 5th AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

Text: Gex argues that he was denied his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution because he could not confront Cromer at the Tribunal hearing on Cromer's case. He cites Netterville v. Mississippi State Bar, 397 So.2d 878 (Miss. 1981), (holding that while the investigatory hearing is not a full evidentiary hearing, it nevertheless must be expanded to permit the accused attorney to cross examine witnesses) in support. The Bar argues that Rule 5.6 of the Rules of Discipline would show that Cromer is not a party to the proceedings. The Bar correctly points out that Gex's counsel acknowledged that if this case were to be decided as a matter of law, Cromer's presence would not be necessary. Because the material facts are not in dispute, the Tribunal was correct to issue partial summary judgment in favor of the Bar. This issue is without merit.