Opinion ID: 166658
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opportunity to Call Witnesses

Text: Mr. Diaz argues that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses, and that the disciplinary boards denied him the opportunity to call witnesses in his own defense. The Constitution does not require the opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination in disciplinary proceedings. Wolff , 418 U.S. at 568. Rather, whether cross-examination will be allowed is a matter of discretion for prison officials. Id. at 569. Consequently, it was not unconstitutional for USDB not to permit Mr. Diaz to cross-examine staff members at his disciplinary hearings. -5- Wolff does hold that “the inmate facing disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.” 418 U.S. at 566. Thus, while an inmate generally has the right to call witnesses and present evidence, such right is not absolute; the prison can restrict witness testimony and documentary evidence due to special requirements of the prison setting. See id. at 566-67; Ramer v. Kerby , 936 F.2d 1102, 1104 (10th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Maschner , 899 F.2d 940, 946 (10th Cir. 1990). Here, the disciplinary boards documented their reasons, on a case-by-case basis, for not hearing all of Mr. Diaz’s requested witnesses, and the reasons given (redundancy, relevancy, and duplication) were within the permissible discretion of prison officials. See Ramer , 936 F.2d at 1104. The denial did not actually or effectively deprive Mr. Diaz of any defense. Cf. Smith , 899 F.2d at 947. Mr. Diaz was not deprived of due process by not being allowed to call his requested witnesses. For these reasons, the district court did not err in denying the writ with regard to this claim. -6-