Will UC-San Diego keep hiding witnesses that could prove accused students innocent? by Greg Piper.
From the post:
The University of California-San Diego routinely hides the identity of witnesses that could help students accused of wrongdoing exonerate themselves, departing from its own rules on who is “relevant” to an investigation.
This policy, which has been applied against accused students for at least the past five years, was not publicly known until 11 months ago. A state appeals court fleshed out its existence in a due-process lawsuit against the school by a student who was found responsible for cheating and expelled.
That court struck down UCSD’s ruling against Jonathan Dorfman, saying it had no legal reason to withhold the identity of “Student X” – whose test answers Dorfman allegedly copied – from him.
Arguing before the court, the UC System’s own lawyer admitted that the school had never bothered to ask Student X where he was sitting in class that day in 2011 – potentially preempting its case against Dorfman.
…
UC-San Diego has copied the government’s use of “secret” evidence in U.S. military commissions.
Here UC-San Diego decided who or what was “relevant” to its inquiry, saying:
When a female judge suggests that UCSD decided “this was enough and we’re not going to give the information to the defense to try to poke holes in it,” Goldstein responds with apparent earnestness: “That is the procedure here.”
If U.S. prosecutors were so honest, they would echo:
we’re not going to give the information to the defense to try to poke holes in it,
That works, only if you have a presumption of guilt. So far as I know, lip service is still payed to the presumption of innocence.
If prosecutors want a presumption of guilt, they should argue for it openly, and not conceal that as well.