Opinion ID: 1436706
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Department's Disciplinary Action and Procedures

Text: The Department issued a Disciplinary Report to Walton on the same day as the incident. The Disciplinary Report, signed by Officer Williams, contained three charges against Walton: (1) possession of major contraband (a Class I offense) in violation of 28 DCMR § 502.11; [2] (2) possession of contraband (a Class II offense) in violation of 28 DCMR § 503.10; [3] and (3) abuse of privileges (a Class III offense) in violation of 28 DCMR § 504.4. [4] Under 28 DCMR § 505, one of the penalties that is authorized for Class I, II, and III offenses is: Assignment to adjustment segregation ... for a period not to exceed fourteen ... days (28 DCMR § 505.2) in the case of Class I and II offenses or seven days in the case of a Class III offense (28 DCMR § 505.3(a)). [5] On January 20, 1992, the Department sent Walton a memorandum regarding the charges contained in the Disciplinary Report. The memorandum summarized the Disciplinary Report and advised Walton of the approximate date of his hearing on the charges contained in the Disciplinary Report. It also included Walton's statement concerning the charges against him, as follows: It was not seven gallons. It was approx. two gallons. In addition, the memorandum reflects the fact that Walton asserted his desire to have representation at the hearing, his desire to have Sergeant Bonaparte at the hearing but not the writer of the Disciplinary Report, his desire to have witnesses present, and his wish to be heard by an Adjustment Board instead of a Hearing Officer. [6] Walton's signature appears at the bottom of the January 20, 1992, memorandum. A hearing on the charges against Walton took place on January 28, 1992, before the Adjustment Board (the Board); the Chair of the Board was Corporal Ernestine Tillman. [7] Walton testified at the hearing and called two witnesses: Sergeant Bonaparte, who inspected his cell after the odor was reported by Officer Williams, and Dr. John Seipel, a medical officer at Lorton who testified regarding the fermentation of fruit juice and the possibility of intoxication from the liquid found in Walton's cell. The Department introduced the Disciplinary Report, but did not call Officer Williams (the author of the Report) to testify. In addition, the Department presented documentary evidence which revealed that the alcohol content of the grapefruit juice in Walton's cell was less than one tenth of one percent. The only factual disagreement during the hearing appeared to be the number of gallons of liquid found in Walton's cell. The Disciplinary Report calculated the amount as about seven gallons. Walton insisted that only two gallons were found in his cell. During his oral testimony, Sergeant Bonaparte's estimate ranged from seven or eight to fourteen or fifteen to thirty-four gallons. [8] After all testimony and evidence had been received, the Adjustment Board deliberated. It stated its finding and recommendation in writing as follows: `Guilty' based on documentation. Recommend fourteen days [Adjustment] segregation. Return to former status after completion of [Adjustment] segregation. Resident does wish to appeal. Return to former status . . . after time. Although the Board recommended fourteen days of adjustment segregation, it did not recommend any forfeiture of all or part of [Walton's] earned good time under 28 DCMR § 505.2(a). [9] The Board informed Walton of its decision orally, and sent him a copy of the written statement.