New York Law Review

Tag: Prison Disciplinary Proceedings

  • Josey v. Goord, 9 N.Y.3d 386 (2007): Res Judicata Not Applicable to Prison Disciplinary Actions Following Criminal Convictions

    9 N.Y.3d 386 (2007)

    Res judicata does not bar the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) from disciplining an inmate based on a criminal conviction, even if the inmate was previously disciplined for the same underlying conduct.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that res judicata does not prevent DOCS from imposing disciplinary sanctions on an inmate following a criminal conviction, even if the inmate was previously disciplined for the same conduct. The Court reasoned that applying res judicata in this context would be inconsistent with the purpose of prison disciplinary proceedings, which are designed to maintain order and safety within correctional facilities. The need for swift disciplinary action outweighs the potential for preclusion based on prior administrative sanctions. DOCS must be able to modify penalties based on new information arising from a criminal conviction.

    Facts

    Derek Josey, a prison inmate, was involved in a fight with another inmate, Richard Rodriguez, during which Josey stabbed Rodriguez, resulting in Rodriguez’s death. DOCS issued a misbehavior report, and after a hearing, Josey was found guilty of assault, fighting, and possessing a weapon, and was sentenced to 24 months in the Special Housing Unit (SHU). Later, Josey pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter for Rodriguez’s death. DOCS then issued a second misbehavior report, and after a hearing, Josey was found guilty and received an additional 72 months in the SHU.

    Procedural History

    After the initial disciplinary hearing, Josey received a penalty. Following his manslaughter conviction, DOCS issued a second misbehavior report, resulting in another penalty. Josey filed an Article 78 proceeding, arguing that the second penalty was barred by res judicata. Supreme Court denied the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether res judicata prevents DOCS from disciplining an inmate for violating prison rules based on a criminal conviction when the inmate had already been disciplined for the same underlying incident.

    Holding

    No, because applying res judicata in this context would be inconsistent with the function of DOCS in maintaining prison order and safety.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals recognized that while res judicata generally applies to administrative determinations, its application must be consistent with the agency’s function and the necessities of the case. The Court emphasized that DOCS has a legitimate penological interest in making disciplinary determinations quickly for security and rehabilitative reasons. The Court noted that “Prison disciplinary proceedings take place in a highly charged atmosphere, and prison administrators must often act swiftly on the basis of evidence that might be insufficient in less exigent circumstances” (quoting Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 456 (1985)). The Court stated that DOCS has a strong interest in being able to modify a penalty in light of a subsequent criminal conviction based on the same act, as contemplated by disciplinary rule 1.00 (7 NYCRR 270.2[A]). The Court reasoned that precluding DOCS from modifying penalties based on criminal convictions would impede its ability to promote prison safety. The Court also highlighted that the goal of prison disciplinary action is not to vindicate public justice, but to maintain prison order and safety. The Court reasoned DOCS must be able to modify penalties based on new information arising from a criminal conviction. To conclude otherwise would impede DOCS’s ability to promote prison safety and have the perverse effect of encouraging DOCS hearing officers to impose more stringent disciplinary penalties initially, before any criminal investigation and proceedings are concluded.

  • People v. Smith, 89 N.Y.2d 941 (1997): Prosecution’s Duty to Disclose Witness Statements Held by Corrections

    People v. Smith, 89 N.Y.2d 941 (1997)

    The prosecution is not obligated to locate and turn over witness statements made during a prison disciplinary proceeding when those statements are held by the Department of Correctional Services, as that agency is primarily administrative rather than law enforcement.

    Summary

    Smith, a prison inmate, was convicted of assault. He argued that the prosecution failed to disclose statements of witnesses made during his prison disciplinary proceeding, violating the Rosario rule. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the prosecution had no duty to obtain and disclose these statements because they were held by the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), an administrative agency. The court reasoned that DOCS is not a law enforcement agency with a duty to share such material with the District Attorney, distinguishing it from entities directly involved in criminal investigations.

    Facts

    The defendant, Smith, was an inmate. He was involved in an incident within the correctional facility that led to criminal charges of assault. During the prison’s internal disciplinary proceedings regarding the incident, witness statements were taken. These statements were recorded in transcripts held by the State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS).

    Procedural History

    Smith was convicted of assault. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution violated the Rosario rule by failing to disclose the witness statements from the prison disciplinary proceeding. The Appellate Division upheld the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the statements of witnesses made during the defendant’s prison disciplinary proceeding constituted Rosario material that the prosecution was required to disclose.

    2. Whether the inmate-eyewitness’s in-court identification had an independent source.

    3. Whether the admission of testimony by a correction officer regarding a pretrial identification procedure was permissible bolstering requiring reversal.

    4. Whether the circumstantial evidence offered at trial was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Holding

    1. No, because the statements were not within the People’s control as they were generated and held by the State Department of Correctional Services, an administrative rather than a law enforcement agency.

    2. Yes, because there was support in the Wade hearing record for the Appellate Division’s finding that the inmate-eyewitness’s in-court identification had an independent source.

    3. No, because the admission of testimony by a correction officer regarding that pretrial identification procedure was impermissible bolstering; however, the error was harmless in light of the clear and strong evidence of defendant’s guilt.

    4. Yes, because the circumstantial evidence offered at trial was, when viewed in a light most favorable to the People, legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Rosario rule, requiring the prosecution to disclose prior statements of its witnesses, only applies to materials within the People’s control. The witness statements in question were held by DOCS, which the court characterized as primarily an administrative agency, not a law enforcement agency with a duty to share information with the District Attorney. The Court distinguished the Correction Department from agencies at the end of the State’s law enforcement chain, emphasizing its administrative function. The court cited People v. Washington, 86 NY2d 189, 192-193 and People v. Flynn, 79 NY2d 779, 882, indicating that the People had no obligation to attempt to locate and gain possession of the material.

    Regarding the in-court identification, the Court deferred to the Appellate Division’s finding of an independent source. As to the bolstering claim, the Court acknowledged the error but deemed it harmless due to the strength of the other evidence against the defendant. Finally, the court found the circumstantial evidence legally sufficient, viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, citing People v Norman, 85 NY2d 609, 620-622 and People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620.

    The Court stated: “The statements in question were embodied in transcripts that were generated and held by the State Department of Correctional Services. That agency has no duty to share such material with the District Attorney for the county in which the underlying conduct occurred.”

  • Serrano v. Coughlin, 74 N.Y.2d 639 (1989): Sufficiency of Evidence in Prison Disciplinary Hearings

    Serrano v. Coughlin, 74 N.Y.2d 639 (1989)

    In prison disciplinary proceedings, written reports alleging inmate misconduct must contain specific details about the individual’s actions to constitute substantial evidence of guilt; generalized reports that all inmates present participated in a disturbance are insufficient.

    Summary

    Two inmates, Serrano and Bryant, were charged with violating a prison disciplinary rule for participating in a riot. The primary evidence consisted of written reports stating that all inmates in the mess hall were actively participating in the riot. The New York Court of Appeals held that these generalized reports, lacking specific details about each inmate’s conduct, did not constitute substantial evidence to support the disciplinary determinations. The Court emphasized that prison disciplinary determinations must be supported by substantial evidence, and the Commissioner must adhere to their own regulations requiring specificity in misconduct reports.

    Facts

    During dinner at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, a riot erupted in the north mess hall, involving approximately 130-140 inmates. Correction officers reported assaults and the use of weapons by inmates. Petitioners Serrano and Bryant, present in the mess hall, were subsequently charged with violating prison disciplinary rule 104.10, which prohibits inmates from engaging in violent group conduct. The evidence against them primarily consisted of written reports stating that all inmates present were actively participating in the riot. Serrano was also accused based on information from a confidential informant who claimed Serrano was throwing trays.

    Procedural History

    Both inmates were found guilty at their respective disciplinary hearings. Serrano’s penalty included 365 days’ confinement, loss of privileges, and loss of good time. Bryant’s penalty was similar but later modified on administrative appeal. After exhausting administrative remedies, both inmates filed Article 78 petitions challenging the determinations as unsupported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Division confirmed the findings, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether written reports stating that all inmates present at a riot participated in violent conduct, without specifying individual actions, constitute substantial evidence to support a disciplinary determination against specific inmates.

    2. Whether information from a confidential inmate informant, without further corroboration, is sufficient to support a disciplinary determination.

    Holding

    1. No, because the reports lacked specific details about the individual inmates’ actions, failing to meet the requirements of the Department of Correctional Services regulations.

    2. The Court did not reach this issue as it found the other evidence insufficient; however, the Appellate Division had previously deemed such uncorroborated third-party information insufficient.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court emphasized that a prison disciplinary determination must be supported by substantial evidence, and the Commissioner must follow their own regulations. The regulations require that reports of inmate misbehavior should indicate the specific role played by each inmate involved. The Court found that the reports offered as evidence against Serrano and Bryant failed to meet this requirement, as they only contained conclusory statements that all inmates present in the mess hall participated in the disturbance, without any reference to the specific actions of Serrano or Bryant. The Court stated that “[e]ach of these reports contains only conclusory statements that all inmates present in the mess hall participated in the disturbance, with no reference to either petitioner.” The Court rejected the argument that any degree of participation in a riot justifies a finding of guilt, stating that the reports did not particularize any degree of involvement by either petitioner. Regarding the confidential informant’s information against Serrano, the Court declined to address whether its admission was harmless error, as it found the other reports insufficient. The Court highlighted that “[i]n the cases before us, the failure of the Commissioner to follow his own regulations in the reports by specifying an inmate’s misconduct must be considered a material defect.” The court distinguished the case from People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, stating the reports here fell “well below the particularized individual descriptions of misconduct held sufficient in Vega“.

  • позвонить в smith, 73 N.Y.2d 143 (1989): Дью Процесс Права Заключенных в Дисциплинарных Слушаниях

    In re позвонить в Smith, 73 N.Y.2d 143 (1989)

    В тюремном дисциплинарном производстве заключенные имеют ограниченные права на надлежащую правовую процедуру, включающие предварительное письменное уведомление о нарушении, письменное изложение доказательств, на которых основано решение, и условное право вызывать свидетелей, если это не ставит под угрозу безопасность учреждения.

    Summary

    В данном деле рассматриваются права на надлежащую правовую процедуру заключенного в дисциплинарном производстве тюрьмы, в частности право на получение письменного изложения доказательств, использованных при принятии решения, и причины отказа в вызове двух свидетелей. Суд постановил, что власти тюрьмы предоставили адекватное объяснение отказа в вызове свидетелей и что расширенное изложение доказательств, на которых основано решение, соответствовало требованиям как Конституции, так и тюремных правил. Суд также подтвердил право апелляционного отдела вернуть дело должностному лицу, проводящему слушание, для разъяснения доказательств.

    Facts

    26 октября 1987 года заключенный Джеймс Хаузер подвергся нападению в исправительном учреждении Салливана. Заявителю, также заключенному в этом учреждении, было предъявлено обвинение в совершении нападения в нарушение тюремных правил. На слушании третьего уровня сотрудник исправительного учреждения, подавший отчет о правонарушении, показал, что он разговаривал с конфиденциальным осведомителем, который был свидетелем нападения и опознал заявителя как нападавшего. Должностное лицо, проводящее слушание, также опросило осведомителя вне присутствия заявителя и без его ведома, который подтвердил эти факты и указал, что он не желает давать публичные показания из-за опасений за свою безопасность.

    Procedural History

    Заявитель обратился в Апелляционный отдел с ходатайством об отмене решения, утверждая, что власти тюрьмы нарушили его права на надлежащую правовую процедуру и свои собственные правила. Апелляционный отдел вернул дело должностному лицу, проводящему слушание, для разъяснения по поводу изложения доказательств, на которых основано решение. Апелляционный отдел отклонил ходатайство после получения расширенного изложения. Дело было передано в Апелляционный суд.

    Issue(s)

    1. Было ли отказано заключенному в надлежащей правовой процедуре из-за того, что не было предоставлено адекватное изложение доказательств, на которых основано решение?

    2. Нарушили ли власти тюрьмы правила, отказав в вызове свидетелей, запрошенных заявителем?

    3. Допустил ли Апелляционный отдел ошибку, вернув дело должностному лицу, проводящему слушание, для разъяснения?

    Holding

    1. Нет, поскольку расширенное изложение, предоставленное должностным лицом, проводящим слушание, удовлетворило требования Конституции и правил.

    2. Нет, поскольку отказ в вызове свидетелей был оправдан опасениями за безопасность учреждения и потенциальной возможностью возмездия.

    3. Нет, поскольку в деле было достаточно доказательств для поддержания решения, и возврат дела просто позволил агентству более адекватно описать характер доказательств осведомителя.

    Court’s Reasoning

    Суд постановил, что заключенный, обвиняемый в нарушении тюремного правила, которое может привести к потере кредита «примерного поведения», имеет право на минимальную защиту надлежащей правовой процедуры. Суд признал право заключенного на предварительное письменное уведомление о заявленном нарушении, а также на письменное изложение лицами, устанавливающими факты, доказательств, на которых основано решение, и причин дисциплинарного взыскания. Суд также признал условное право вызывать свидетелей, когда это не будет чрезмерно опасно для безопасности учреждения или целей исправления. Однако заключенный не имеет права на адвоката и не имеет права на очную ставку или перекрестный допрос свидетелей.

    Суд отметил, что одной из основных причин ограничения прав заключенного таким образом является необходимость снижения риска насилия между обвиняемым заключенным и теми, кто обвиняет его или предоставляет доказательства против него. Суд подчеркнул, что должностные лица тюрьмы должны иметь необходимое усмотрение, чтобы отказать в вызове свидетелей, которые могут создать риск возмездия. Кроме того, должностное лицо, проводящее слушание, может исключить определенные пункты из письменного изложения доказательств, на которых основано решение, если раскрытие информации может поставить под угрозу свидетеля.

    В отношении отказа в вызове жертвы Хаузера суд постановил, что должностное лицо, проводящее слушание, предоставило заявителю форму, подписанную жертвой, в которой он указал, что «не хочет вмешиваться» и добавил рукописное примечание, в котором говорится: «опасается возмездия». Суд постановил, что требования правила были соблюдены.

    Что касается конфиденциального осведомителя, суд постановил, что протокол показывает, что должностное лицо, проводящее слушание, опросило осведомителя в отсутствие заявителя из-за риска возмездия и отклонило просьбу заявителя о вызове осведомителя для дачи показаний вне его присутствия, потому что он уже сделал это. Таким образом, суд постановил, что в протоколе раскрывается основание для принятия решений и показано, что они были оправданы.

    Суд согласился с Апелляционным отделом в том, что должностное лицо, проводящее слушание, могло бы быть более откровенным в своем первоначальном заявлении, но расширенное заявление удовлетворило требованиям Конституции и правила. Суд отметил, что не считает роковым то, что должностное лицо, проводящее слушание, было слишком неохотно раскрывать слишком много доказательств в своем первоначальном заявлении, что было чрезмерным, но понятным в свете деликатности и новизны ситуации.