NachtLaw, P.C. - Nacht & Roumel, P.C.
Protect Your Rights.
Call Today 888-312-7173

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Expands Accused Rights in College Disciplinary Proceedings

 "Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth." So wrote John Henry Wigmore, legendary judge and legal scholar. However, when a college student is faced with a disciplinary proceeding, cross examination has not been required by the courts, and is generally not allowed. This is true even though a suspension or expulsion can affect a person's ability to continue education or find jobs.
 
No more, says the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has ruled that some form of confrontation may be constitutionally required in certain cases.
 
"John Doe" was a University of Cincinnati student who engaged in a sexual encounter with "Jane Roe," and believed it to be consensual. However, three weeks later, Jane made a complaint to the University that John had violated the Code of Conduct by sexually assaulting her.
 
                A hearing was held, but Jane did not appear. John expressed that he could not properly present his defense without being able to question her account. The hearing panel proceeded anyway, and found John responsible for a sexual assault, and issued a two year suspension.
 
John filed a lawsuit to stop the suspension, and the federal district court granted it. The University appealed, but the 6th Circuit upheld the ruling. The court said that due process is guaranteed in college disciplinary hearings, and that in a "he said/she said" credibility contest, especially where hearsay evidence was used against John, due process may include some form of confrontation. Without it, the proceeding may be "fundamentally unfair."
 
Recognizing that direct cross-examination may be traumatic, especially in a case of sexual assault, the court clarified that confrontation may be indirect - for example, the accused may submit cross examination questions to be asked by a neutral hearing officer. Nonetheless, this case is significant in opening the door to confrontation in a student disciplinary hearing where important rights are at stake, and credibility is a critical issue.
 
The case is Doe v. University of Cincinnati, U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, 9/25/17

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
Email Us For A Response

Don’t Hesitate. Let Our Firm Help You Protect Your Rights.

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

We have developed a particular way we handle consultations at NachtLaw. Based on years of experience advising thousands of clients about their rights, we have settled on a method that allows our attorneys to provide the best advice possible in a setting that ensures confidentiality and promotes an atmosphere of trust.

Ann Arbor, MI
101 North Main Street Suite 555
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Ann Arbor Law Office Map

Traverse City, MI
415 Cass Street Suite 2C
Traverse City, MI 49684

Traverse City Law Office Map

Toledo, OH
One Seagate Suite 685
Toledo, OH 43604

Toledo Law Office Map

Birmingham, MI
401 South Old Woodward Avenue Suite 460
Birmingham, MI 48009

Birmingham Law Office Map