Informer-Based Prison Punishment Is Upheld

A state prison inmate may be punished solely on evidence provided by secret informants who have not appeared for questioning before a disciplinary hearing officer, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The court unanimously upheld state regulations that permit prisoners to be disciplined on the basis of such information, provided that the hearing officer takes other steps to independently make sure that the informants are reliable.

The justices rejected claims made by an inmate at San Quentin Prison that the procedure allows prisoners to be victimized through rumor or false accusations by inmates who carry grudges or seek favor with authorities.

The 4-0 ruling was the first by the court since the departure from office Jan. 5 of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph R. Grodin, who were defeated in the November election.

To be issued, the decision required unanimity among the four remaining members of the court: Justices Stanley Mosk, Allen E. Broussard, Malcolm M. Lucas and Edward A. Panelli. It is likely to be one of few rulings issued before three as yet-unnamed successors to the departing justices are named by Gov. George Deukmejian and are confirmed into office.

At issue were the quasi-judicial procedures used in the state corrections system to punish inmates for disciplinary violations. In such proceedings, inmates have certain limited rights, including notice of charges, a hearing before an impartial officer and a written statement of findings. If found guilty of rule violations, they are subject to loss of up to six months of credit for good time served or can be placed in segregation.

About 5,000 disciplinary hearings take place annually, many in which the identity of an accusing inmate is so carefully protected that he is not called to testify or even privately interviewed by a hearing officer.

In the case before the court, Fernando A. Jackson, a 31-year-old inmate serving a life term for robbery and kidnaping, was accused in 1983 by three secret informants of manufacturing and distributing weapons for use by a prison gang.

Attorneys for Jackson challenged the validity of the proceedings and won an order from a Marin County Superior Court judge requiring that the hearing officer, a senior member of the prison staff, interview the accusers in private to help determine their reliability.

After such a proceeding, the charges against Jackson were dropped, but state authorities appealed the judge’s order because of its potential impact on the entire corrections system.

The state attorney general’s office contended that in the unique prison setting, it would be virtually impossible to keep such a hearing secret from other inmates and that the accusers would be placed in grave danger. Further, the state said, if potential accusers feared their identities would be learned through such private hearings, they would not come forward with evidence against other inmates.

Due Process

In 1985, a state Court of Appeal upheld the state’s contentions, concluding that the procedures were sufficient to protect both the due process rights of accused defendants and the personal safety of prison informants.

On Monday, the four justices, in an opinion signed “by the court,” said that the due process clauses of neither the federal nor state constitutions require that hearing officers personally question secret informants.

But the court cautioned that its ruling is “not graven in stone” and that the “balance might well tip” in favor of such a requirement if it could be shown that such hearings could be conducted without the risk of other prisoners learning the identities of accusing inmates.

The court said there now is “serious question” whether private hearings with informants could be held and still maintain prison order and security. The justices took note of a separate case in which an unnamed San Quentin informant became known as “Pin Cushion” after he been stabbed 122 times by other inmates.

Hearing Record

The justices stressed that hearing officers must take steps to corroborate testimony from secret informants--such as interviewing guards or other officers about the informants’ past reliability--and establish a hearing record that a reviewing court would find supports a determination of reliability.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul D. Gifford said that he is “very much pleased” with the decision and that it will help protect the safety of inmates who come forward to accuse other convicts.

But Gifford said also that the rights of an accused inmate will be sufficiently protected by the court’s requirement that hearing officers independently obtain evidence to corroborate the reliability of an informant’s claims.

“There must be more than a simple blind reliance on the informant,” Gifford said.

Donald Specter, an attorney for the Prison Law Office who represented Jackson, said he is “disappointed” in the court’s decision.