Doe

Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.

Good Law
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 843·28 Cal. App. 5th 44
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 9, 20182d Civ. No. B283229California6,957 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

*46 Due process - two preeminent words that are the lifeblood of our Constitution. Not a precise term, but most everyone knows when it is present and when it is not. It is often most conspicuous by its absence. Its primary characteristic is fairness. It is self-evident that a trial, an adjudication, or a hearing that may adversely affect a person's life must be conducted with fairness to all parties.

Here, a university held a hearing to determine whether a student violated its student code of conduct. Noticeably absent was even a semblance of due process. When the accused does not receive a fair hearing, neither does the accuser.

John Doe (John) was suspended from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) for eight quarters (two years) because he was found guilty of sexual misconduct in violation of UCSB's Student Conduct Code. He appeals the superior court's decision denying his petition for a writ of administrative mandate to compel UCSB to rescind his suspension. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (g).)

*845 John was denied access to critical evidence; denied the opportunity to adequately cross-examine witnesses; and denied the opportunity to present evidence in his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.