Opinion ID: 874336
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: right to confront accusers

Text: Petitioner contends that he is entitled to know the identity of the person(s) who prompted the Council investigations because he has a right to confront his accusers. Even though the Executive Director of the Council testified twice under oath in the Council hearing that there was no original complaint or verified statement filed with the Council, Petitioner continues to request discovery of the identity of his accuser. He asserts, Judge Bradbury has a basic right to know the identity of his accuser and the accusations made. Although he does not expressly state the source of this basic right, we assume that Petitioner is referring to the Sixth Amendment right to confront one's accusers. That Amendment applies to criminal prosecutions, and this is not a criminal prosecution. Even if it were applicable and even if there were an accuser, it would not give Petitioner the right to the identity of any such person. No such person testified at the hearing and no information from an informer was contained in the record before the Court. The witnesses at the hearing were Petitioner, the Idaho County Clerk, and Hamlin. Petitioner had ample opportunity to confront those witnesses. He was present when they testified, he questioned them, and he does not contend that he was in any way wrongfully limited in such questioning. If any person provided information that played a part in the Council's investigation, such person was not an accuser as that term is used in connection with the Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. No such person was a witness nor was any information that any such person may have provided included in the record. Our findings are based upon the evidence in the record.