34 Cal.App.5th 622
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Jane Roe reported that John Doe sexually assaulted her after a January 15 off‑campus party; Westmont’s Associate Dean (investigator) prepared reports and the Student Conduct Panel adjudicated the matter.
- The Panel found John committed Sexual Assault Category I and II and suspended him two years; the Vice President summarily denied John’s administrative appeal.
- John challenged the Panel’s decision by petition for writ of administrative mandate under Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; the trial court granted relief, finding the hearing unfair and ordering a new proceeding.
- Westmont’s written procedures required disclosure of the investigator’s interview notes, permitted advisors (non‑speaking), allowed witnesses to be recalled for follow‑up, and required advance notice of Panel meetings; meetings were not recorded but a non‑Panel staffer took notes.
- The Panel did not interview or hear testimony from several critical witnesses (K.S., M.H., M.W.) but relied on the investigator’s written summaries of their statements; it also withheld investigator notes and the staffer’s detailed interview notes from John and provided only oral summaries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether John was afforded a fair hearing | Westmont denied a fair hearing by relying on unpresented witness statements, withholding investigator and Panel notes, and preventing meaningful questioning | Westmont argued John received a fair hearing and substantial evidence supported the Panel's credibility findings | Court held John was denied a fair hearing; affirmed trial court and ordered new proceedings consistent with opinion |
| Adjudicators relying on nontestifying witnesses’ statements | Investigator and Panel relied on portions of non‑testifying witnesses’ statements to corroborate and impeach without observing demeanor | Westmont maintained reliance on investigative reports and summaries was permissible under its procedures | Court held Panel cannot credit selective parts of nontestifying witnesses’ statements over testifying witnesses when adjudicators never observed those witnesses; critical witnesses must be presented in some form |
| Access to investigative materials and opportunity to question witnesses | John argued Westmont’s failure to provide investigator’s notes and detailed Panel notes impaired his ability to propose follow‑up questions and rebut evidence | Westmont contended oral summaries and the process afforded were adequate; investigator may serve on Panel | Court held Westmont violated its own policy by withholding notes; accused must receive investigator’s materials and a meaningful mechanism to propose questions (direct or indirect) |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. University of Southern California, 246 Cal.App.4th 221 (discussing disclosure and fair hearing mechanics in campus sexual‑misconduct proceedings)
- Doe v. University of Southern California, 29 Cal.App.5th 1212 (requiring some form of witness presence when credibility is dispositive)
- Doe v. Regents of University of California, 5 Cal.App.5th 1055 (fair hearing standards; compliance with institutional procedures)
- Doe v. Allee, 30 Cal.App.5th 1036 (flexible protections and right to indirectly question witnesses)
- Doe v. Claremont McKenna College, 25 Cal.App.5th 1055 (importance of observing witness demeanor and investigator/adjudicator roles)
- Doe v. Regents of University of California (UCSB), 28 Cal.App.5th 44 (disclosure of witness identities/facts and ability to respond)
- Fitch v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 9 Cal.4th 552 (difficulty of assessing credibility on a cold record)