Legal Document

471 U.S. 491 105 S.Ct. 2192 85 L.Ed.2d 553 Joseph PONTE, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole, Petitionerv.John REAL. No. 83-1329. Argued Jan. 9, 1985. Decided May 20, Syllabus Respondent, a prison inmate, as result of fight that occurred in office, was charged with violation regulations. At the hearing on these charges, disciplinary board refused to allow respondent call witnesses whom he had requested, but record does not indicate board's reason for such refusal. The found guilty, and 150 days his "good time" credits were forfeited. Respondent then sought writ habeas corpus trial court, which sustained claim petitioner Superintendent deprived him due process guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment, because advanced no reasons court why allowed requested witnesses. Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding there must be some support administrative justify decision witnesses, since this case contained support, state regulations governing presentation proof hearings unconstitutional extent they did require contain supporting denial an inmate's witness request. Held: Due Process Clause Amendment officials' denying request appear hearing. While officials at point their refusing may do so either making explanation part or later presenting testimony if deprivation "liberty" interest, afforded credits, is challenged refusal Pp. 495-500. 390 Mass. 399, 456 N.E.2d 1111, vacated remanded. Martin E. Levin, Framingham, Mass., petitioner, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Jonathan Shapiro, Boston, respondent. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion 1 held forfeited John Real conducted United States Constitution statement requested. v. 1111 (1983). We granted certiorari, 469 814, 77, 83 26 (1984), review judgment it seemed us go further than our pronouncement subject Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 94 2963, 41 935 (1974). we agree requires inmate hearing, disagree placed writing otherwise exist vacate Court, remand court. 2 In 1981 Institution Walpole. December year working metal shop heard commotion adjacent office. He entered office observed another prisoner fighting corrections officer. A second officer attempted break up fight, ordered other inmates who watching disperse immediately. depart, escorted cell. 3 One week three violations imbroglio. notified officials, form provided purpose, wished four would upon charges: two fellow inmates, charging officer, involved fight. charges February 1982. appeared testified against respondent, declined advised apparently whatever proceeding declining guilty charged, after appeal penalties reduced, received sanction 25 isolation loss good-time-credits. 4 sanctions seeking That respondent's Ponte, M.C.I. whatsoever 5 On Massachusetts, affirmed different reasons. discussed supra, noted "[l]eft unresolved . question whether Federal requirements impose duty explain, any fashion, later, testify." 405, N.E.2d, 1115. concluded "administrative record" barren support. Because its conclusion, declared hearings, Mass.Admin.Code, Tit. 103, § 430.14 (1978)1 point, those facts 405-407, 1116, citing Hayes Thompson, 637 F.2d 483, 487-489 (CA7 1980). 6 Petitioner dispute possessed provisions law, affording interest could taken from without minimal safeguards Amendment. touchstone freedom arbitrary governmental action, Wolff, U.S., 558, S.Ct., 2975, "[p]rison proceedings are criminal prosecution, full panoply rights defendant apply." Id., 556, 2974. Chief among minima outlined right present documentary evidence defense before board. repeated Baxter Palmigiano, 425 308, 96 1551, 47 810 (1976), ordinarily basic fair necessarily circumscribed penological need provide swift discipline individual cases. This additionally very real dangers life violence intimidation directed staff. described "mutual accommodation between institutional needs objectives Constitution. ." Baxter, 321, 1559, 7 Thus prisoner's denied granting "unduly hazardous safety correctional goals." 566, 2974; 1559. See also Hughes Rowe, 449 5, n. 6, 101 173, 175, 66 163 (1980). As stated : "Prison have necessary discretion keep within reasonable limits refuse create risk reprisal undermine authority, well limit access collect statements compile evidence. Although prescribe it, useful [disciplinary board] witness, irrelevance, lack necessity, hazards presented cases." 2980. 8 Notwithstanding suggestion give request, nowhere explain nor record. 9 Eleven years experience now "prescribe" constitutional doctrine time witness. Nor can conclude only satisfied contains therefore reasoning case. But petitioner's intimation, Brief 53, courts inquire into when points "substantial evidence" shows ignored set forth Wolff. contention successfully challenge unless show pattern practice all requests. "across-the-board" policies requests invariably proper. 53-55, 9. 10 exactly posed opinion: "whether think answer required limited manner, testify, proceeding, claimed defect words, choose "later." Explaining will course immunize subsequent decision, long logically related preventing undue "institutional goals," should meet 11 take place tightly controlled environments peopled been unable conduct themselves properly free society. Many persons scant regard property, life, rules order, 561-562, 2977, might attempt exploit own ends. 563, 2978. requirement contemporaneous given admittedly has appeal, commend itself matter choice: recollections event fresher moment, seems more lawyerlike way things.2 primary business prisons supervision responsibility feel additional burdens occasioned detract ability perform principal mission institution. see advantage building sort "common law prison" subject, others prefer deal challenges case-by-case basis. hold permits approach. 12 confers ever vouched right, change privilege conferred unreviewable meant something that. recognized one, available "when permitting unduly 2979. evidence." Ibid. 13 Given significant limitations observation "[w]e too ready exercise oversight put aside administrators," ibid., rarely, ever, successful. fact success rare actions warrant adoption position, effect burden action capricious. These almost definition inmate; conditions exist, sound basis tell what are. 14 Indeed, security similar paramount interests least first instance official's justification camera. going further, adding weight already heavily weighted scale requiring produce rarely possession, superintendent always possession. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 355 253, 256, 78 212, 214, 247 (1957); Campbell States, 365 85, 96, 81 421, 427, 428 (1961); South Carolina Katzenbach, 383 301, 332, 86 803, 820, 15 769 (1966). contends entitled affirmance even though reject Court's 340.14(6) unconstitutional. argues independent grounds: (1) court's simple finding failure rebut allegations complaint relief; (2) unconstitutionality ground, issue certiorari. Rule 21.1(a); 15.1(a). urge ground adopted today is, think, problematical decide.3 It best left 16 vacated, remanded inconsistent opinion. 17 ordered. 18 POWELL took 19 STEVENS, BLACKMUN joins Part II, concurring part. 20 March 10, 1983, submitted along others.1 each case, prisoners institutions procedural fairness recurring practices process. five opinions assigned same justice, eight months unanimous interpreting minimum context. evident deliberation cases suggests careful effort establish workable State. 21 * candidly states certiorari "seem[s] 539 [94 935] (1974)." Ante, 492. MARSHALL out, manifestly insufficient argument docket. post, 522-523, 21. merits isolated oblique relevance grant consistent administration discretionary docket.2 22 When petitioned heavy explaining intervene amounts controversy State's officials.3 determining context under Constitution, emphasizes cautious ensure parties varying 50 District Columbia. 497-498, 2. display caution relevant deciding jurisdiction place. below State jurisdictions explore contours light local conditions. 23 imprudence aggravated substantial probability will, remand, reinstate original Constitution.4 event, decision—as applied Massachusetts—will prove little futile convince carefully made somehow lacking wisdom "As creates unnecessary work expressions concern about overburdened federal judiciary ring hollow echo." Watt Alaska, 451 259, 274, 1673, 1682, 68 80 (1981) (STEVENS, J., concurring). II 24 Having petition however, address merits. All arbitrarily obvious recorded contemporaneously, made. Moreover, expressly holds, ante, 499, proving valid rather inmate. many cases, difficult discharge officers elect rely solely testimonial recollection uncorroborated documentation. For reason, allocation proof, together policy considerations summarized MARSHALL, surely motivate most, all, administrators adopt "the prevailing throughout country." Post, 518 (MARSHALL, dissenting). I am persuaded prescribes written permissible method discharging legitimate join opinion.5 BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 27 "some Rejecting concludes hear particular cannot accept alleged denials vital reviewed, record, post hoc courtroom rationalizations. believe contemporaneous-record prepared disclosed judicial sought. Upon proper showing require, compatible setting demonstrated recording current most country. 28 declines relate full, highlight importance hearings. describes, group observe guard broken out supervising Baleyko, area. blandly observes "did depart." 493. Real's version events, considerably detailed. According Real, began leave, dozen one whom, Officer Doolin, stopped brief shakedown search questioning. Baleyko looked noticed still despite order leave. tried cut short locked up. face, obey perfectly plausible, internally consistent, contradict undisputed facts. 29 then, classic swearing match: offered facts, countered version. Under circumstances, observers incident seem highly to, perhaps dispositive of, produced hearing: allegedly officer.1 board, composed No excluding seemingly time. deciphered indeed eventually good-time credit—a near 5-month term offense opportunity defend offer word guard. 30 acknowledges them. much clear Drawing longstanding principles embodied Fifth, Sixth, Amendments,2 called "qualified" witnesses: 31 "[T]he facing 32 (1976). qualified element overall "reasonable" accommodation" "provisions Constitution" institution" 572, 2982. 33 consider how strike respect implementing witnesses.3 Two options today. boards enter exclusion witnesses; explanations, while assure based factors. option hoc, rationalizations constitute attempts actions, months, years, excluded. 34 Inexplicably, passing consideration option, chooses second. choice principle announced If Wolff's mutual means, contends, "is facets demands security,"4 means security. Contemporaneous explanations important and, keeping intrude objectives" identified. face readily enforcing instead after-the-fact gratuitously dilutes fulfills my previously expressed fear "noble holdings" become "little empty promises." 581, 2987 (opinion J.). dissent. III 35 contemporaneous-explanation balance general matter, understood serve functions. First, promote decisionmaking decisionmaker consciously focus statutory criteria decision.5 Knowledge tested justifications contemporaneously increases prospect nonarbitrary decisions initially. 36 Second, meaningful compiled litigation began. Post counsel "have traditionally inadequate review." Citizens Preserve Overton Park Volpe, 401 402, 419, 91 825, 136 (1971): 37 "[A]n advocate's hypothesis decision-maker thus-and-such reasonably thus-and-such, likely impressive. appraise validity examining grounds shown decision." W. Gellhorn, C. Byse, P. Strauss, Administrative Law 361 (7th ed., 1979). 38 decisionmakers willing submit affidavits hindsight previous decisions, offers merely "post rationalizations." Burlington Truck Lines 371 156, 168-169, 239, 245-246, 207 (1962). usually explanation, however brief, rendered decision. 39 contexts apply force seriously. And accuracy findings significantly affected, often crucial defense,6 particularly "obviously faces severe credibility problem trying disprove guard." 583, 2988 —for example, advance notice relied on—make sense her through Apart evidence, else officer; confront cross-examine adverse typically marshal 568, 2980; 321-322, hinges compelling assuring, excluded, being scrupulously honored. Connecticut Bd. Pardons Dumschat, 452 458, 472, 2460, 2468, 69 158 dissenting);7 cf. Harris Rivera, 454 339, 344-345, 11, 102 460, 463-464, 70 530 (per curiam ) ("[W]hen minimized unfairness, diminished judge rulings"). 40 unlikely practical use Board remember, fact, actual case.8 Appeals concluded, "[t]he central effectiveness insuring subjected officials." 488 led virtually identical rights, stake.9 Vitek Jones, 445 480, 100 1254, 63 552 (1980), example directly point. There considered transfer mental institution pre-transfer To fours case; both Yet excluded except good cause—the extend hearings.10 Similarly, Gagnon Scarpelli, 411 778, 93 1756, 279 (1973), circumstances parole probation revocation faithfully honored, "[i]n every preliminary final refused, succinctly record." 791, 1764. North Pearce, 395 711, 726, 89 2072, 2081, 656 (1969) (written sentence imposed trial); Gagnon, supra revocation); Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 489, 92 2593, 2604, 484 (1972) (same decisions); Goldberg Kelly, 397 254, 271, 90 1011, 1022, 287 (1970) termination public assistance payments); Kent 541, 561, 1045, 1057, 84 (1966) juvenile waives jurisdiction, subjecting adult). 42 Ignoring precedents, view simply policy; content "significant arguments" favor "approach" required. question, favors other, elements satisfy steps process, stake makes contribution reliability sufficient outweigh government. Black Romano, 606, 617-619, 2254, 636 (1985) concurring) (collecting cases); generally Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 335, 343, 893, 903, 907, 43 Applying here, doubt liberty are, course, serious magnitude, integral assuring reality boards, overly inclined guards ignored. include skeletal protections begin with, essential whole. extra-record meaningless protection exclusions justified explanations. fails come grips 44 Established compel conclusion refusals absence convincing otherwise, clear. turn, found. IV 45 identified have: proposal respondent—sealed followed camera review—would concerns fully. time, maximizes enjoy constitutes sensible, "reasonable 46 A. Institutional Hazards Threat Reprisal factor caused qualify restrict said safety." Fearing "subject unwritten code exhorts inform prisoner," id., 562, concerned honoring "a [might] authority," "hazards cases" "reprisal" testifying dangerous disclosure Again today, relies staff." 495. Presumably, intimidate coerce falsely, goes disclose threats target retaliation announces safety" precludes witness.11 48 sealed files, camera,12 fully protect threat allowing feared compromise safety. solution widely appropriate response variety analogous clashes involving government secrecy needs. McCray Illinois, 386 300, 87 1056, 62 (1967), identity informants police suppression lower turned "protect defendant." LaFave, Search Seizure 3.3, p. 583 (1978). Through informant identity, protected significant, impairment secrecy, yet saved misconduct." Moore, 522 1068, 1073 (CA9 1975).13 Congress specifically invoked confidentiality exemptions Freedom Information Act. U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). "plainly [the] appropriate" struck. S.Rep. 93-1200, Other examples procedures abound, wiretapping statute14 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 1978,15 closed Government justified. 49 settings safeguarded hardly gainsaid confidential protects purports just solution. approach, "prison [must] formed refusal, stating reason16 open eschew Recognizing holds that, "if it," 499 "in instance," camera.17 once adequately evaporate acknowledges, combination files safety," qualification relied, although less centrally, vaguely defined "correctional goals" amount "swift punishment." invokes "need cases," 495, 51 unconvincing denied. overriding concern, all? imperatives preclude calling suffice. 52 More generally, twinkling eye interfere goals. easy comply provision " 'written factfinders reasons' action." 564, 2979 (citation omitted). proffered "irrelevant" "cumulative," credibly task completing report forms. that: 53 "[I]t burdensome exist. 54 ". disclosure. where acts improperly truly burdensome. precisely necessary." Regents Roth, 591, 2701, 2716, 548 (dissenting). 55 true, true here. Hewitt Helms, 459 103 864, 884, 74 675 (1983) dissenting) ("[A] [for segregation] [not] officials"). 56 Ironically, shortsighted approach "state discovery cross-examination process.18 contrast, prepared, normally Cf. SEC Chenery Corp., 332 194, 196, 67 1575, 1577, L.Ed. 1995 (1947). Thus, bearing reliance goals misplaced. V 57 end, rests abstract generalities specific mechanics established operate. founder concrete continuing implementation Regulations promulgated Bureau Prisons 58 names them testify jeopardize threaten individual's chairman shall document [Institutional Disciplinary Committee] report." CFR 541.17(c) (1984) (emphasis added). 59 Columbia witnesses.19 60 addition, preparing favored experts devoted resources studying know quite American Association (ACA), study funded Department Justice, following standard "essential" disciplinary-hearing procedures: 61 "Written procedure make his/her behalf; ACA, Standards Adult Institutions, Standard 2-4363 (2d ed. 1981). National Conference Commissioners Uniform Laws (NCUSL) determined whenever denied, factual [call witness] person physical harm." NCUSL, Model Sentencing Correction 4-507 (1979). third reached conclusion: "Reasons disallowing prisoners' appearance purposes future ABA Criminal 23-3.2, 23-41, 1980) (as added 1983). authorities implemented over last learned sorts taking tentative step area, ackowledged events "require reflection Court." majority dissenting ought "state" 584, J.); 597-598, 2994-2995 DOUGLAS, implied neither middle-ground alternative proposes today: preserved legal surprising, let alone file access. 2982, 20.20 review, depends, common developments, expectation developments clearer concerns, inexplicably ignores evolution approaches area.21 VI 64 leaves dangling wind. Perhaps virtue certainly discern basis, grounded reasoning, it. dispense certain but, always, scope underlying purpose." Roviaro 353 60, 77 623, 627, 639 (1957). —the promotion goals"—can realized accommodating rights. country well. otherwise. Admin.Code, (1978), provides part: "(4) presence reporting attend determines unavailable prolonged period [sic] illness cause. "(5) compelled oral mitigation punishment. "(6) defense, factors ruling questioning include, following: "(a) Relevance "(b) Cumulative "(c) Necessity "(d) "(7) relevant, non-cumulative defense." MARSHALL's dissent maintains rule permitted beneficial claims, universally necessity constitutionally commanding opinion, arguments follow advocated criticize forces learn denials, impossible dissent's kept seal able get proceeding. lead increasing lawyers attached advise officials; words possible bases contemporary 517, essentially lawyer's words. formality structure bringing attorney lawsuit filed. former ideally suited populated relatively small area latter desirable sparsely large Nevada. alternative. exceedingly thin, confusion existed concerning 1982 unrelated arising 1980 incomplete relief, corrected stayed relief. affirm permit wise proceedings. Nelson Commissioner Correction, 379, 1100 (1983); (case below); Lamoureux 409, 1117 Cassesso 1123 Royce 425, 1127 reach questions resolved 276, 1683, ("My disagreement management docket not, prevent me joining [the opinion] merits"); Revere General Hospital, 463 246-247, 2979, 2984-2985, 605 judgment). "Because branch government—invoked imposing expense City Revere, authority sensible wield authority? not. 'nothing prohibits giving lawmaking power courts.' Minnesota Clover Leaf Creamery 456, 479 [101 715, 732, 659] violated never deemed national significance. Since, (unwisely opinion) judgment." 247, 2984-2985 judgment) (footnote Michigan Long, 1032, 1067-1068, 3469, 3490-3491, 1201 dissenting); series recent reversed state-court Bill Rights judgment, comparable guarantee See, e.g., Upton, 466 727, 104 2085, 721 Commonwealth 394 363, 370-373, 476 548, 554-556 (1985); California Ramos, 992, 3446, 1171 (1983), People Cal.3d 136, 150-159, Cal.Rptr. 800, 807-814, 689 P.2d 430, 437-444 cert. 1119, 2367, 266 Dakota Neville, 553, 916, 748 346 N.W.2d 427-429 (SD 1984); Washington Chrisman, 455 1, 812, 778 (1982), Wash.2d 817-822, 676 422-424 (en banc). development supports Jackson's "reversal higher justice thereby better done. super-Supreme proportion reversals reversed. infallible, infallible final." Brown Allen, 344 443, 540, 73 397, 97 (1953) (concurring result). paragraph 2, 498. appears pursued 7, infra. eliminate possibility: called. 13-14. (1970); Dorszynski 424, 455, 3042, 3058, 855 (1974) (Marshall, judgment); Greenholtz Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 40, 99 2100, 2120, 668 (1979) 479, 875, 468, 2466, (Stevens, "Few fundamental accused Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 302, 1038, 1049, 297 (1973). Texas, 388 14, 19, 1920, 1923, 1019 (1967): "The attendance, necessary, plain terms defendant's prosecution's [factfinder] decide truth lies. law." Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 858, 3440, 3450, 1193 (1982) (O'CONNOR, ("[T]he compulsory trial"); re Oliver, 333 257, 273, 507, 682 (1948). "Whether shortcoming magnitude admittedly, fairly debatable. Judges reasons, suggest commit error. ordinary litigant courtroom. few protections. provid[e] possibly detail fit Napoleon." 2468. 1980, 6,914 63, 12. Even "admittedly .: things." 497. Of essence "lawyerlike" fair, rational, 'except finding, made, cause .' 494-495, 1264 (quoting below, Miller Vitek, 437 F.Supp. 569, 575 (Neb.1977)) probably greater key neutral physician psychologist, 1258. guard, main him, personal including vindictive retaliatory ones, wanting convicted. fears exaggerated comes confrontation witnesses." observing comparison '[c]onfrontation interests.' "Confrontation stand footing [than witnesses] inherent danger availability adequate them." 322, 1560. discussion inspection might, failing Alexander, 559 1339, 1340 (CA5 1977) ("[I]n helpful balancing interests"); Anderson, 509 724 1974); Hurse, 453 128 (CA8 1971); Jackson, 384 825 (CA3 1967); Darden, N.Y.2d 177, 313 49, 356 N.Y.S.2d 582 2518. 1801 et seq. bare recitation withstand assertion provided. 1974). B. Goals Woods Marks, 742 770 1984) (summary inappropriate affidavit offering witness). Alaska Dept. Corrections, AAC05.430.(c) Completion Instructions (1984); Ala. Admin. Regulation 403, 10(g) Ark. Policy Procedures ¶ V(C)(2) Cal.Penal Code Ann. 2932(a)(3) (West 1985); Colo. Discipline 7e(3), (1981); D.C. Lorton Approval 1982, 110.2, (1982); Fla. Rules 33-22.07(5) Ga. Offender Rehabilitation, State-Wide Plan 6(c), Prison, Procedure &Par; 8(c), Haw. Social Services Housing, Corrections Div., Inmate Handbook 17-201-17(e)(3) (Board "encouraged" reasons); Ill. Rules, 504.80(i)(3) Ind. Policies Procedures, Form 39586R, 20; Iowa Activity, §§ (Procedure) (D)(3), (E)(5) Kan.Admin.Reg. 44-13-405a(g) (Supp.1984); Ky. Cabinet, 15.6, VI(E)(1)(e) Md. Public Safety Services, Division 105-2, IV-B(2)(b) Mich. Hearings II-B(3), Miss. XII(D)(1), (1975); Mont. Conduct Hearing 2-PD 85-216, pp. 10-11 Neb. 6(6)(e), 6-3 Major Added Handling Witness Requests 2(C); N.J. 254.18 N.M. Penitentiary, PNM 090301, II(C)(8) N.Y. 253.5(a) N.C. .0201(c)(4) Okla. Statement OP-060401, 2(C)(1)(c) Ore. Human Resources Division, Governing Prohibited Conduct, Processing Actions VI(G)(4)(a) VI(G)(6)(d) Tenn. Index 502.01, VI(D)(2)(d) (Dec. 1981); Tex. V(B)(4) Utah III(D)(2)(g) Wis.Admin.Code, note HHS 303.81 (1985). Some explicitly unclear carried out. Neither amici curiae voluminous briefs filed O.T.1973, 73-679. sparse utter empirical foundation bald assertions product single federal, records forecloses. balances needs, precipitately rushing voids courts, decreases likelihood arrives account options. cried conflict, responded. hastily prevails wont do, deprives insight judges issues experiential provides. result, Once again, "[p]remature resolution novel stunted natural growth refinement principles." Carney, 386, 2066, 406 workload, worth noting conflict unfathomable. stringent recognized. continue weakest speaks institutions. Oregon Hass, 420 714, 95 1215, 1222, 570 (1975) 1065, 3489, Developments Law, Harv.L.Rev., 1342-1347 (1982). mounting list claims overburdened; "[m]uch 'burdensome' workload aggressiveness" headlong grant, prematurely, overstated petitions Attorneys distraught performance 396, ---- Reserving import far toward alleviating problems

Classification Label: 3