2006AP948 Jackson v. Buchler

Listen to this article

Prisons
Prison discipline

Where evidence is inconclusive, and does not contradict evidence in a prison discipline hearing, it is unnecessary to decide whether a prisoner has a right to exculpatory evidence.

“Having concluded that the video evidence neither undermines nor contradicts the confidential informants’ statements–and that it may in fact corroborate them–we turn next to briefly address Jackson’s argument regarding exculpatory evidence. Brady v. Maryland and its progeny provide that the government may not withhold exculpatory or impeaching evidence from a defendant in a criminal trial. Jackson asserts that the government’s obligation to disclose exculpatory or impeaching evidence also applies in the context of a prison disciplinary proceeding, and that the adjustment committee was obligated to produce this video evidence.”

“The respondents counter that there is no controlling law applying Brady’s requirements to prison disciplinary proceedings. If this court were to recognize a Brady-like claim in this context, however, the respondents urge us to conclude that its application must be limited by the ‘needs and exigencies of the institutional environment.’ See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 555.”

“In the sufficiency of evidence section set forth above, we determined that the video evidence is inconclusive. It is that same determination that leads us to conclude that we need not and should not decide in this case whether any version of Brady–limited or otherwise–applies in the prison disciplinary setting.”

Affirmed.

2006AP948 Jackson v. Buchler

Bradley, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Shriner, Thomas L., Jr., Milwaukee; Halfenger, G. Michael, Milwaukee; Spitz, Katherine D., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Potts, Abigail, Madison

Full Text