×
You have no more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Unidentified Prisoner Informant's Testimony Not Substantial Evidence
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, ordered
a prisoner's disciplinary record expunged because the hearing officer's
finding of guilt was not supported by substantial evidence. Kenneth
Gaston, a New York state prisoner, was charged with organizing a food
strike in violation of prison rules. At the ensuing disciplinary hearing
the only evidence entered against Gaston was another prisoner's testimony,
related through a guard. The informant was not identified nor did he
testify directly. Two prisoners testified that Gaston had not participated
in the food strike.
Upon transfer from the Supreme Court, Wyoming County, the Supreme Court,
Appellate Division held that the proof relied upon by the hearing officer
did not "constitute substantial evidence and [was] insufficient to support
the determination [of guilt]." The appellate court further ordered all
references to the charges expunged from Gaston's record. See: Gaston v.
Coughlin, 182 A.D.2d 1085, 582 N.Y.S.2d 878 (1992).
a prisoner's disciplinary record expunged because the hearing officer's
finding of guilt was not supported by substantial evidence. Kenneth
Gaston, a New York state prisoner, was charged with organizing a food
strike in violation of prison rules. At the ensuing disciplinary hearing
the only evidence entered against Gaston was another prisoner's testimony,
related through a guard. The informant was not identified nor did he
testify directly. Two prisoners testified that Gaston had not participated
in the food strike.
Upon transfer from the Supreme Court, Wyoming County, the Supreme Court,
Appellate Division held that the proof relied upon by the hearing officer
did not "constitute substantial evidence and [was] insufficient to support
the determination [of guilt]." The appellate court further ordered all
references to the charges expunged from Gaston's record. See: Gaston v.
Coughlin, 182 A.D.2d 1085, 582 N.Y.S.2d 878 (1992).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Gaston v. Coughlin
| Year | 1992 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 182 A.D.2d 1085, 582 N.Y.S.2d 878 (1992). |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | Granted |
MATTER KENNETH GASTON v. THOMAS A. COUGHLIN (04/24/92)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT
[2]
[3] 1992; 582 N.Y.S.2d 878; 182 A.D.2d 1085
[4] filed: April 24, 1992.
[5] MATTER OF KENNETH GASTON, PETITIONER,
v.
THOMAS A. COUGHLIN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
[6] (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.)
[7] Present: Boomer, J.p., Pine, Lawton, Boehm, Davis, JJ.
[8] Determination unanimously annulled on the law and petition granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: On May 19, 1990, there was a food strike at the Auburn Correctional Facility. Based upon confidential information received from an inmate by a correction officer, petitioner was charged with organizing the food strike in violation of 7 NYCRR 270.2 (5) (iii). After a Tier III rehearing, at which petitioner and two other inmates testified that petitioner had not been involved in the food strike, petitioner was found guilty.
[9] The record of the Tier III rehearing shows that there was no evidence against petitioner except the conclusory statement of the informant, which was related by the correction officer who received the information. Although the informant was identified during in camera testimony, he did not testify, and there was no evidence corroborating his information. The record was insufficient to enable the hearing officer to assess the reliability of that information. Thus, the proof does not constitute substantial evidence and is insufficient to support the determination (see, Matter of Carter v Kelly, 159 A.D.2d 1006, 1008; Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 148 A.D.2d 779, 780; Matter of Alvarado v LeFevre, 111 A.D.2d 475). All references to these charges must be expunged from petitioner's files.
[10] We have examined petitioner's other contention and find it to be without merit.
[1] SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT
[2]
[3] 1992; 582 N.Y.S.2d 878; 182 A.D.2d 1085
[4] filed: April 24, 1992.
[5] MATTER OF KENNETH GASTON, PETITIONER,
v.
THOMAS A. COUGHLIN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
[6] (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.)
[7] Present: Boomer, J.p., Pine, Lawton, Boehm, Davis, JJ.
[8] Determination unanimously annulled on the law and petition granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: On May 19, 1990, there was a food strike at the Auburn Correctional Facility. Based upon confidential information received from an inmate by a correction officer, petitioner was charged with organizing the food strike in violation of 7 NYCRR 270.2 (5) (iii). After a Tier III rehearing, at which petitioner and two other inmates testified that petitioner had not been involved in the food strike, petitioner was found guilty.
[9] The record of the Tier III rehearing shows that there was no evidence against petitioner except the conclusory statement of the informant, which was related by the correction officer who received the information. Although the informant was identified during in camera testimony, he did not testify, and there was no evidence corroborating his information. The record was insufficient to enable the hearing officer to assess the reliability of that information. Thus, the proof does not constitute substantial evidence and is insufficient to support the determination (see, Matter of Carter v Kelly, 159 A.D.2d 1006, 1008; Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 148 A.D.2d 779, 780; Matter of Alvarado v LeFevre, 111 A.D.2d 475). All references to these charges must be expunged from petitioner's files.
[10] We have examined petitioner's other contention and find it to be without merit.