25 Cal.App.5th 1055
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- John Doe (CMC student) was accused by Jane Roe (student at neighboring college) of nonconsensual sex after an October 2014 encounter; CMC’s Committee found John violated the college’s sexual misconduct policy and suspended him for one year.
- Investigator interviewed both parties and multiple witnesses, produced a report, and the Committee (investigator + two community representatives) reviewed the report; Jane did not appear at the Committee hearing; John did and submitted written questions and evidence.
- CMC’s procedures allowed—but did not require—party appearances or questioning; they permitted submission of written questions for the investigator/panel to ask at discretion, and allowed remote participation by Skype.
- The Committee relied on narrative statements, text messages, medical visit records, and witness interviews; it credited aspects of Jane’s account and found the matter turned on witness credibility (no independent eyewitnesses).
- John petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate challenging procedural fairness (lack of opportunity to question Jane) and insufficiency of evidence; the trial court denied relief; John appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether John was denied a fair hearing by not being able to question Jane or have the Committee assess her credibility directly | John: Facing severe sanctions and where the decision turned on Jane's credibility, he was entitled to have Jane appear (in person or by video) and to have the Committee ask questions proposed by John or itself | CMC: Procedures allowing submission of written questions to the investigator satisfied fairness; investigator’s presence on the Committee sufficed to convey witness demeanor; other corroborating evidence meant this was not a pure he-said-she-said | Reversed: Where credibility of the complainant is central and severe sanctions may result, fairness requires the complainant be before the factfinder (in person or by videoconference) so the panel can assess credibility and ask questions (directly or indirectly) |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. University of Southern California, 246 Cal.App.4th 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (discusses limits on cross-examination in campus proceedings and emphasizes notice, access to evidence, and opportunity to appear before decisionmakers)
- Doe v. Regents of University of California, 5 Cal.App.5th 1055 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (holds that when credibility of complainant is decisive and sanctions are severe, respondent must have a means to question complainant indirectly before the panel)
- Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2017) (requires opportunity for the factfinder to assess complainant's credibility—permitting remote testimony and indirect questioning—when case hinges on accuser credibility)
- John A. v. San Bernardino City Unified School Dist., 33 Cal.3d 301 (Cal. 1982) (in student disciplinary contexts, reasonable decisionmakers rely on live testimony so credibility can be tested unless substantial reason prevents production)