Legal Document

371 U.S. 531 83 Supreme Court Reporter 403 9 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 486 Daniel Alton WILLIAMS, Petitioner,v.Eugene M. ZUCKERT, Secretary of the Air Force, et al. Number 133. Argued Dec. 13, 1962. Decided Jan. 14, 1963. David I. Shapiro, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Stephen Judge Pollak, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, a veteran with civil service status, was discharged from his civilian position Force alleged misconduct. Subsequent to unsuccessful prosecution appropriate administrative proceedings review discharge, he brought suit in District Court, which granted summary judgment respondent Force. The Appeals affirmed. 111 U.S.App.D.C. 294, 296 Federal Reporter, 2nd 416. Certiorari granted, 369 884, 82 1166, 8 286, consider whether, under principles enunciated by this Vitarelli versus Seaton, 359 535, 544—545, 79 968, 975, 3 1012, petitioner's discharge vitiated an improper denial right cross-examine at hearing before Civil Service Commission on appeal pursuant § 14 Veterans' Preference Act 19441 and implementing regulations2 promulgated Commission. 2 Review record argument counsel disclose, however, that issue is not adequately presented case; accordingly, we conclude writ certiorari should be dismissed as improvidently granted. Although amply notified advance nature charges, names witnesses whose affidavits had supplied factual basis dismissal, date hearing, neither petitioner nor made any request, prior or its examiner, themselves, their appearance cross-examination. request production witnesses, only counsel, timely conformity applicable regulations, contemplate party desiring presence either direct examination cross-examination, shall assume initial burden producing them.3 4 Had attempt obtain attendance desired through no fault own failed, then, give meaning language contained regulations affording 'opportunity * cross-examination witnesses,'4 would have been required, upon proper produce them, since they were readily available, Force's control. so require. Here, though seeks rely has failed bring himself within them. 5 Petitioner accorded ample opportunity present case rebut charges against him several levels 6 dismissed. 7 Mr. Justice HARLAN concurs result. DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting. After 16 years faithful government service, branded stigma strength three affidavits. Though asked these affiants produced none called confront him. says came too late conform Regulation.1 Due process dictates different We heretofore analogized cast citizen into outer darkness 'involve imposition criminal sanctions'; looked 'deeply rooted' law guidance construing character. Peters Hobby, 349 331, 344—345, 75 790, 796, 99 L.Ed. 1129; Greene McElroy, 360 474, 496, 1400, 1413, 1377. By analogy construe Regulation being protective confrontation, providing technical way saved lost. 10 Confrontation are, & N Immigration Nationality Decisions understand law, vital when one's employment rights are involved. See supra, 1413; Beard Stahr, 370 41, 43, 1105, 1106, 321 (dissenting opinion). merely 'denied work one isolated specific military installation.' Cafeteria Restaurant Workers, etc. 367 886, 896, 81 1743, 1749, 1230. now attached will follow him, whatever seeks. requirements due provided Fifth Amendment protect harsh result giving same accusers trial. Mattox States, 156 237, 15 337, 39 409;2 Kirby 174 47, 55, 19 574, 577, 43 890; Curtis Rives, 66, 123 936, 938. For certainly haunt later life much conviction willful evasion taxes. 11 A trial misconduct involving immorality, like disloyalty, likely 'the most crucial event public servant. If condemned, person unworthy trust confidence. To make condemnation without meticulous regard decencies fair abhorrent fundamental justice.' Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee McGrath, 341 123, 180, 71 624, 653, 95 817 (concurring 12 deprived job permanently stigmatized confronted accusers, even requested could easily produced. does more than Regulation. He relies Sixth Amendment. sure, phrased constitutional terms. But procedures games won lost turn phrase. In claimed procedure 'was arbitrary capricious violative Amendments Constitution.' That raised issue. Terminiello Chicago, 337 1, 6, 69 894, 93 1131; cf. Williams Georgia, 375, 814, 1161. It remembered while veteran's proceeding 'appeal,' it usually first employee 'hearing' construed substantially similar requiring Interior Department call all 'non-confidential' informants. Government advances persuasive reason why control one. At called, rejected because Academy saw need attendance.' who desires confrontation accuser such conflict interest adversary he, rather opponent, can better determine what might useful defense.3 say important technicality embraces. 13 saddle strict formalities concerning manner exceptions objections made. They place proceedings, Rule 51 Rules, 18 U.S.C.A.4 makes clear; unhealthy let them take root hearings where human involved precious 'liberty,' Amendment, person's fined imprisoned unless prescribed followed. below reversed remanded full hearing. 58 Statutes-at-Large 390, amended, Code KF62 863, Annotated KF65 U5 863. CFR, Part 22. Regulations 22.607, titled 'Appearance witnesses,' provides: 'The authorized subpoena witnesses. designated representative, employing agency, must arrangements witnesses.' 22.603 'Opportunity afforded introduction evidence (including testimony statements representative representatives agency witnesses) pt. 22, §§ 22.603, 22.607. primary object provision (is) prevent depositions ex parte used lieu personal witness accused opportunity, testing recollection sifting conscience witness, but compelling stand face jury order may look judge demeanor gives whether worthy belief.' U.S., 242—243, S.Ct., 339. related problem revealing business firms barred participating directly indirectly contracts notice, heard, discussed Report Debarment Suspension Persons Contracting Federally Assisted Construction Work prepared Administrative Conference Adjudication Claims, October 'Exceptions rulings orders court unnecessary purposes exception necessary sufficient party, time ruling sought, known action objection grounds therefor; if order, absence thereafter prejudice him.'

Classification Label: 3