212 A.3d 336
Me.2019Background
- Fitzgerald Carryl, a Maine State Prison inmate, was charged in a disciplinary report with assault based on a corrections officer’s review of surveillance video showing Carryl near cell 204 during the time frame of an alleged assault on another inmate (Prisoner Y).
- At the May 1, 2018 disciplinary hearing Carryl asked to call Prisoner Y as a witness; the hearing officer denied the request, citing safety concerns for the victim.
- The hearing officer found Carryl guilty, stating the officer’s report made it "more probable than not" that Carryl committed the assault; a 30‑day disciplinary restriction was imposed and later affirmed by the Chief Administrative Officer.
- Carryl sought judicial review in Superior Court under M.R. Civ. P. 80C; the court affirmed the disciplinary decision. Carryl appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
- The principal issues on appeal were (1) whether denial of Carryl’s request to call Prisoner Y violated his due‑process right to present witnesses, and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of request to call victim witness | Carryl argued the hearing officer improperly blocked his witness, depriving him of the right to present witnesses. | DOC argued the witness denial was justified by institutional safety concerns—testifying could endanger the victim. | Denial was permissible; safety rationale was logically related to penological needs. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for assault finding | Carryl argued the officer’s report contained no competent evidence showing an assault occurred or that Carryl committed it. | DOC relied on the disciplinary report and video timestamps as sufficient to support a "more probable than not" finding. | Vacated: the report lacked evidence of an assault or Carryl’s involvement; no competent evidence supported the finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (inmates have limited due‑process rights in disciplinary hearings, including constrained witness rights)
- Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 (1985) (denial of witnesses is permissible when reasonably related to institutional safety)
- Richard v. Sec’y of State, 192 A.3d 611 (Me. 2018) (standard of review for agency decisions under M.R. Civ. P. 80C)
- Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 989 A.2d 1128 (Me. 2010) (agency findings vacated only where no competent evidence supports decision)
- Int'l Paper Co. v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 737 A.2d 1047 (Me. 1999) (agencies must state facts sufficient to show a rational basis for decisions)
- Fissmer v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 170 A.3d 797 (Me. 2017) (vacatur appropriate where no competent evidence supports agency action)
- Vasquez v. Coughlin, 726 F. Supp. 466 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (investigatory negligence about witness availability does not alone establish due‑process violation)