DAVID SCIRICA VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), A-3801-19

Background

In April 2020 at Southern State Correctional Facility, inmates being moved into a COVID-19 quarantine unit (Unit 2R) barricaded the dayroom, refused repeated orders to disperse, and impeded officers' view and count procedures. Sixty-three inmates were eventually secured and transferred.
David Scirica was charged with prohibited act *.252 (encouraging others to riot) based on video, officer reports, escort reports, and phone records placing him in the dayroom during the disturbance.
Scirica presented inmate witness statements and testified he was on the dayroom phone; he contended he did not participate in barricading or otherwise foment the disturbance.
Because of COVID-19 and operational concerns, DOC conducted written (not in-person) confrontation with officers, limited all inmates to the same written questions, and denied follow-up questions; a prison administrator denied Scirica’s polygraph request.
The hearing officer found Scirica guilty, discredited inmate statements as potentially collusive, and the DOC adopted the findings; Scirica appealed claiming insufficient evidence, denial of confrontation rights, and improper denial of a polygraph.

Issues

Issue	Scirica's Argument	DOC's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support *.252 (encouraging riot)	Record lacks substantial or credible evidence that Scirica encouraged the riot; phone usage alone insufficient	Video, officer reports, escort reports, and phone records show noncompliance and group participation; specific role not required	Affirmed — hearing officer’s findings supported by substantial credible evidence; participation in noncompliance can constitute encouraging others to riot
Denial of in-person confrontation and follow-up questions	Written-only confrontation and no follow-ups violated due process and right to confront witnesses	COVID-19 and operational constraints justified written questioning and denial of follow-ups to avoid repetition and disruption	Affirmed — limited due process was provided; DOC’s exercise of discretion was not arbitrary or unreasonable
Denial of polygraph exam	Polygraph would address credibility and is necessary for fundamental fairness	Polygraph is discretionary; administrator found hearing officer could resolve issues without it	Affirmed — inmates have no right to a polygraph; denial was not arbitrary or unreasonable
Overall due process sufficiency	Cumulative procedural restrictions deprived Scirica of fair adjudication	Notice, substitute counsel, opportunity to confront (in written form), and written findings satisfied due process in the prison-discipline context	Affirmed — procedural protections afforded were adequate given pandemic and operational context

Key Cases Cited

In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (1999) (limited scope of appellate review of administrative decisions)
Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1980) (standards for upsetting administrative agency determinations)
Russo v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 324 N.J. Super. 576 (App. Div. 1999) (DOC has broad discretion in prison administration and discipline)
Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (1975) (prison disciplinary proceedings afford limited due process protections)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (foundational due process principles for loss-of-liberty administrative proceedings)
McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (1995) (reaffirming limited due process rights for inmates)
Ramirez v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18 (App. Div. 2005) (polygraph requests are discretionary and granted only when denial would compromise fundamental fairness)
Johnson v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 298 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 1997) (no entitlement to polygraph in disciplinary proceedings)