18-D-6. "Impartial" Hearing Officer
According to Wolff v. McDonnell, you have the right to have an unbiasedhearing officer conduct your disciplinary proceeding. 186 The hearing officer does not have to meet the very high standard of impartiality that applies to judges. 187 The officer, however, cannot be biased against you as to create a "hazard of arbitrary decisionmaking . . . violative of due process." 188 To prove that the hearing officer is biased against you, you must provide "evidence that the decisionmaker has actually prejudged the case or [had a] direct personal involvement in the underlying charge." 189 For example, one court found a hearing officer's refusal to consider evidence in support of the prisoner's claim was proof of possible bias.190 The court explained, "where a hearing officer indicates on the record that, without considering the evidence, he finds a prisoner's factual defense inconceivable, we cannot conclude that the prisoner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue." 191 In another case, the court dismissed a disciplinary hearing decision given that what the hearing officer did (saying "Okay now. You have to convince me that you're not guilty") suggested bias against the prisoner.192
The New York regulations touch on the issue of impartiality, but they do not guarantee you will have an impartial hearing officer. There are different...
