Opinion ID: 347126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Right to Cross-Examine Adverse Witnesses.

Text: 13 Because Wasson appeared pro se, the Administrative Law Judge informed him of his right to counsel, his right to refuse to incriminate himself, his right to produce evidence, and his right to testify in his own behalf. He was not told that he had the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Under Rule 14(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice 5 and § 7 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 6 parties are entitled to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. Wasson argues that his right to cross-examine was implicitly denied by the Administrative Law Judge's failure to include it among the rights explained. 14 As a general rule, we believe parties appearing pro se in administrative proceedings should be advised of all pertinent rights to which they are entitled. In this case, Wasson should have been informed of his right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Nevertheless, we do not think Wasson's suspension should be reversed because of the Administrative Law Judge's failure in this regard. In presenting this argument, Wasson identifies no ways in which the failure prejudiced him and no instances where the opportunity to cross-examine might have helped his case. Under these circumstances, we believe the error was harmless. 15