Opinion ID: 686727
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Letters and Court Decisions to Which Davidson Referred

Text: 28 Prior to the trial in the Northern District, Davidson had on two occasions successfully challenged in state-court proceedings the allegations that he had attempted to escape from custody; in both instances, in published opinions, Davidson's record was ordered expunged. In the first instance, Davidson had challenged a prison disciplinary board determination that he was guilty of attempted escape in violation of inmate rules. Davidson v. Smith, 69 N.Y.2d 677, 678, 512 N.Y.S.2d 13, 14, 504 N.E.2d 380, 381 (1986). Though lower courts upheld the prison board's determination, the New York Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the rules Davidson was alleged to have violated were not in effect at the time of the alleged violation. The court ordered the institutional findings of guilt nullified, and the proceedings expunged from [Davidson's] record. Id. 29 Thereafter, Davidson successfully challenged an institutional determination that he had violat[ed], inter alia, rule 108.10 of the Rules of Inmate Behavior (attempted escape). Davidson v. Coughlin, 154 A.D.2d 806, 806, 546 N.Y.S.2d 247, 247 (3rd Dep't 1989). In this case, Davidson prevailed in the trial court, which ordered that all references to 'the underlying charges and [the] alleged misconduct on which [they were] based' be expunged from petitioner's files. Id. (brackets in Appellate Division opinion). The institutional defendants challenged the scope of this expungement order, protesting that some of the documents were material to ongoing federal litigation instituted by Davidson. The Appellate Division affirmed, with a slight modification. The appellate court stated that it found nothing improper in the language employed in Supreme Court's judgment.... [A]n order of expungement mandates that all references to the underlying charges be removed from the inmate's record. Id. at 806, 546 N.Y.S.2d at 248 (internal quotes omitted). The court stated that allowing references to charges that have been dismissed and other mischievously equivocal information that might be unfairly construed to remain in prisoners' records leaves inmates in jeopardy of having these references unfairly used against them. Id. at 806-07, 546 N.Y.S.2d at 248. 30 The appellate court's modification was that documents of an evidentiary nature that would be required for defense in Davidson's pending litigation should be turned over to the State Attorney General's office; the court added, however, the express proviso that the documents could only be utilized in a limited fashion for defensive purposes and never offensively, and that the disputed evidentiary material should not be turned over to the Department of Correctional Services for any purpose. Id. at 807, 546 N.Y.S.2d at 248. 31 As to the institutional correspondence to which Davidson referred at the hearing in the district court, Davidson has attached to his reply brief on this appeal copies of certain documents, which we take as an offer of proof as to what he would have produced at an evidentiary hearing. These documents include (1) a letter dated November 24, 1989, to Davidson from DOCS Commissioner Thomas A. Coughlin III--a defendant in Davidson v. Coughlin as well as the present litigation--acknowledging the expungement order in Davidson v. Coughlin and stating that that order was being process[ed]; (2) a memorandum dated March 18, 1992, to Davidson from Timothy J. Murray, Deputy Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, stating, in part, it has been determined that you will no longer be considered an escape risk; and (3) a letter dated March 24, 1992, to Davidson from Coughlin acknowledging Murray's memorandum to Davidson that Davidson will no longer be considered an escape risk, and stating, [h]opefully, this will resolve this issue.