Opinion ID: 1934540
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Right to Confrontation and Cross-Examination

Text: N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.14(a) provides that if requested, the inmate shall be provided the opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination where the Adjustment Committee or Disciplinary Hearing Officer deems it necessary for an adequate presentation of the evidence, particularly when serious issues of credibility are involved. Subsection (b) of that same provision further provides that a Disciplinary Hearing Officer or Adjustment Committee may refuse confrontation and cross-examination when they would be unduly hazardous to correctional facility safety or goals. That State regulation provides more protection than the federal constitution. In interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court determined that requiring cross-examination and confrontation as a matter of course would lead to the considerable potential for havoc inside the prison walls and would result in longer, possibly unmanageable, proceedings. See Wolff, supra, 418 U.S. at 567, 94 S.Ct. at 2980, 41 L.Ed. 2d at 957. Thus, under the federal constitution, adequate bases for decisions in prison disciplinary cases can be arrived at without cross-examination, and whether to permit cross-examination is left to the sound discretion of the prison officials. Id. at 568, 94 S.Ct. at 2980, 41 L.Ed. 2d at 958. Going beyond the minimum protections provided under the federal constitution, this Court in Avant determined that under the New Jersey Constitution, cross-examination and confrontation must be available to the inmate when necessary for an adequate presentation of the evidence, particularly when serious issues of credibility are involved. 67 N.J. at 530, 341 A. 2d 629. Expanding New Jersey's protection of inmates, this Court in Avant amended the standards by requiring that in those cases where the Committee `deems' confrontation and cross-examination `[un]necessary for an adequate presentation of the evidence' the reasons for such denial be entered in the record and made available to the inmate. Id. at 532, 341 A. 2d 629 (quoting Standard 254.274) (alterations in original). This New Jersey requirement exceeds those of most states, which often do not provide for a written explanation from the hearing officer of his or her denial of cross-examination and confrontation to an inmate. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual 509 (3d 1992). This Court determined that such a requirement represented a more precise accommodation of the competing interests and would afford greater flexibility than would an absolute bar to or requirement of confrontation and cross-examination. Avant, supra, 67 N.J. at 532, 341 A. 2d 629. Indeed, requiring that prison officials record reasons for not permitting an inmate to confront or cross-examine witnesses deters administrative arbitrariness. Case Comment, Prisoners' Rights  New Jersey Fairness and Rightness Standard  Procedural Requirements Delineated for Prison Disciplinary Hearings, 29 Rutgers L.Rev. 729, 752 (1976). Furthermore, compliance with the requirement would permit reviewing authorities to determine whether or not there had been a proper exercise of discretion. See id. at 752-53 n. 134. Because N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.14 not only complies with Avant but exceeds the requirements of Wolff, we find no need to expand or even to modify an inmate's right to confrontation and cross-examination.