MORRIS MARIAH, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An inmate challenged the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus seeking to overturn three disciplinary adjudications by the Department of Corrections and his placement in close management confinement. The court denied relief in most respects but concluded that the trial court erred in determining that the inmate had not been denied his right to present witness testimony at the disciplinary hearing on the unarmed assault charge.
The court concluded that the trial court departed from essential requirements of law. While a disciplinary team may exclude testimony if it is immaterial, irrelevant, or repetitive, they may not prejudge the weight or credibility of testimony prior to its presentation. The department's reason for denying the witnesses—that their testimony would have been contrived—constituted an invalid prejudgment of the evidence's credibility rather than a valid exclusionary ground.
[1] A petition for writ of mandamus challenging the denial of a request to present inmate witnesses at a disciplinary hearing is properly pleaded when it identifies the witne…
[2] A prison disciplinary team may not prejudge the weight or credibility of proffered witness testimony before it is presented.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While a disciplinary team may exclude testimony if it is immaterial, irrelevant, or repetitive, they should not prejudge the weight to be given to testimony or evidence prior to it being presented.”
Establishes the key legal principle that disciplinary teams cannot make credibility determinations before hearing evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Mariah was subject to three disciplinary adjudications by the Department of Corrections and placed in close management confinement. At the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Credibility Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, J.
Petitioner challenges the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus seeking to overturn three disciplinary adjudications of the Department of Corrections (department) as well as his placement into close management confinement. We deny relief in all respects but one. We conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in determining that petitioner had not been denied his right to present the testimony of certain witnesses at the disciplinary hearing on the unarmed assault charge.
Petitioner complied with the pleading requirements for raising a mandamus claim concerning the denial of his request for witnesses at the prison disciplinary hearing, as set forth in Holcomb v. Department of Corrections, 609 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), by stating in his petition and the attachments thereto that he had been denied a request to present two specifically identified additional inmate witnesses at the hearing on the unarmed assault charge, that the testimony of these witnesses would have been material as demonstrated by the substance of that testimony which was stated in the petition, and that the department had given an invalid reason for denying his request for these witnesses. The reason given by the disciplinary team at the hearing for denying petitioner’s request for the two additional witnesses had been essentially that the testimony would have been contrived and, therefore, not credible.
In Department of Corrections v. Marshall, 618 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), an inmate’s request for a particular witness to testify was denied on the basis that it simply would have done no good to have had the witness testify. See id. at 778. This court held that the department’s conclusion that the requested witness testimony in Marshall would have done no good did not constitute a valid reason for denying the inmate’s request for the testimony in that case. See id. at 779. While a disciplinary team may exclude testimony if it is immaterial, irrelevant, or repetitive, they should not prejudge the weight to be given to testimony or evidence prior to it being presented. The proffered evidence in the instant case was not immaterial, irrelevant, or repetitive. While the disciplinary team may ultimately choose to find the evidence to be unworthy of belief, they should not make such a determination prior to the evidence being presented. We remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BARFIELD, C.J., and BOOTH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pettit v. Crosby, 862 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…estimony was relevant and material. Moreover, the reason given by the Department for denying the request was inadequate.1 Thus, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying petitioner’s claim. See Mariah v. Moore, 765 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We grant the petition and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ALLEN, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur. . In the circuit court, the Department contended that the witnesses were not…
Authorities Cited
- Holcomb v. Dep't OF Corr., 609 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Turnberry Assocs., Inc. v. Cardinal Pierre & The Fla. Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 618 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Dep't OF Corr. v. Marshall, 618 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)