NCJ Number
86102
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 18 Issue: 5 Dated: (September/October 1982) Pages: 451-456
Date Published
1982
Length
6 pages
Annotation
The use of informants as information sources for disciplinary proceedings in prisons is examined, with emphasis on the need for procedural due process.
Abstract
The Supreme Court has established the applicability of procedural due process to major prison disciplinary proceedings but recognizes the practical considerations requiring a more limited procedure than would be necessary in the free world. Lower court decisions have determined the nature and extent of admissible evidence in disciplinary proceedings. Inmates are necessarily one source of the information upon which discipline is imposed, but inmates who inform on others may become targets for violent acts by other inmates. Thus, the Supreme Court in Wolff v. McDonnell does not require confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses. As a result, informants may give statements to a disciplinary committee in writing or through a third party. The name of the informant is not revealed to the committee, but the name of the individual who provided the information to the committee is known. In dealing with the problem of informants' testimony, courts have used the test developed by the Supreme Court in Aguilar v. Texas for the determination of whether an informant's statement may form the basis of a probable cause determination. The Aguilar test requires factual evidence upon which the believability of the informant can be reasonably determined and upon which it can be determined that the information itself is accurate. Some courts have modified the Aguilar test. However, maintaining the informant's anonymity and assuring that a statement is not contrived are inherently conflicting goals. Any approach to using informants' statements will therefore entail problems. Reference notes are included.