James v. State, Department of Corrections
2011 Alas. LEXIS 92
Alaska2011Background
- Joseph James, an Alaska inmate, was at Red Rocks Correctional Center in Arizona and accused of a low-moderate offense for threatening future bodily harm.
- The disciplinary incident relied entirely on an incident report by staff member G. Mathey, detailing a conversation with Richey, whom James contends spoke with him during the alleged exchange.
- Mathey did not witness the conversation and the report was based on hearsay; neither Mathey nor Richey attended the disciplinary hearing.
- A single hearing officer (Irene Flores) conducted the July 30, 2007 hearing, which was not recorded, and James was found guilty and punished with 20 days of punitive segregation.
- James challenged the decision at the administrative level, then in the superior court, arguing due process violations for reliance on hearsay and for the absence of witnesses and recording.
- The superior court and ultimately the Alaska Supreme Court held that James’s due process rights were violated and remanded for a new, recorded hearing with confrontation rights preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation rights violated by reliance on hearsay | James asserts hearsay alone violated due process and his right to confront accusers. | DOC argues sufficient evidence supports the result and confrontation rights are not violated where procedures are followed. | Major disciplinary proceeding; confrontation rights violated due to absence of accusers and reliance on hearsay. |
| Failure to record the hearing prejudiced due process | Because the hearing was not tape-recorded, James could not pursue or demonstrate due process violations on appeal. | Recording was not required for minor infractions and the absence is collateral. | Failure to record the hearing was prejudicial and violated due process; requires remand for a new recorded hearing. |
| Delineation of major vs minor disciplinary proceeding and applicable McGinnis protections | The offense and punishment constitute a major proceeding triggering McGinnis protections, including confrontation and recording. | Disciplinary action falls under minor protections; McGinnis protections not fully triggered. | The proceeding was major due to the severity of the punishment (20 days punitive segregation), triggering McGinnis protections. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGinnis v. Stevens (McGinnis I), 543 P.2d 1221 (Alaska 1975) (set forth Alaska due process in major disciplinary proceedings and confrontation rights)
- McGinnis v. Stevens (McGinnis II), 570 P.2d 735 (Alaska 1977) (expanded due process protections including recording and counsel for major infractions)
- Brandon v. State, Dep't of Corr. (Brandon II), 73 P.3d 1230 (Alaska 2003) (discussion of major vs minor disciplinary proceedings and recording requirements)
- Abruska v. State, Dep't of Corr., 902 P.2d 319 (Alaska 1995) (addressed confrontation rights when credibility issues arise in minor/major contexts)
- Kraus v. Dept. of Corr., 759 P.2d 539 (Alaska 1988) (recognizes severe punishments as signaling major disciplinary proceedings)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. Supreme Court 1974) (established due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (confrontation concerns with testimonial statements and certifications)