Arthur Nickolas Newsome v. Batavia Local School District
842 F.2d 920, 1988 WL 26081, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3923 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a student expulsion hearing, procedural due process requires that the student be given an explanation of all the evidence the authorities have against them. The consideration of evidence not disclosed to the student violates their constitutional rights, although formal procedures like cross-examination are not required.
Facts:
- Arthur Newsome, a junior at Batavia High School, was accused by the principal, Daniel Swart, of possessing and offering to sell a marijuana cigarette on school property based on information from two unidentified students.
- Newsome denied the charges and, during a suspension hearing before Superintendent James Fite, the names of the student accusers were not disclosed.
- A urinalysis taken by Newsome was negative for drug use, and a juvenile court officer recommended he be returned to school.
- After Newsome declined an offer to transfer to a vocational school in exchange for a clean disciplinary record, the superintendent expelled him for the remainder of the fall semester.
- Newsome appealed his expulsion to the Batavia School Board. At the hearing, his requests to know the identities of or cross-examine his accusers and to cross-examine the principal and superintendent were denied.
- After the public portion of the hearing, the principal and superintendent remained with the school board for its closed deliberations.
- During these closed deliberations, the superintendent presented new evidence not mentioned in the open hearing: an allegation that a counselor, Jean Wessler, had told him that Newsome had confessed to the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Arthur Newsome (plaintiff) filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Batavia School District (defendant) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Newsome sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of his expulsion.
- The district court conducted a hearing during which the superintendent revealed for the first time that he had presented undisclosed evidence to the school board during its closed deliberations.
- The district court denied Newsome's motions for injunctive relief and dismissed his entire case on the merits.
- Newsome (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school district violate a student's Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process in an expulsion hearing by considering evidence that was not disclosed to the student, even if the hearing does not permit the student to cross-examine witnesses?
Opinions:
Majority - Bailey Brown
Yes, the school district violated Newsome's right to procedural due process. A student facing expulsion must be given notice of the charges and an explanation of the evidence the authorities have so they have an opportunity to present their side of the story. The superintendent's failure to disclose the alleged confession evidence during the open hearing completely deprived Newsome of any opportunity to rebut it, which is a clear violation of the minimum requirements of due process established in Goss v. Lopez. However, due process in this context does not require cross-examination of student accusers, as the need to protect student informants from reprisal outweighs the value of cross-examination. Similarly, the burden of imposing formal cross-examination rules on school administrators, who are not judicial officers, outweighs the marginal benefit to the fact-finding process. Finally, the mere presence of the investigating school officials during the school board's deliberations does not, in itself, constitute a denial of the right to an impartial tribunal.
Analysis:
This case refines the procedural due process requirements for student expulsions established by Goss v. Lopez. It holds that while school disciplinary hearings do not need to adopt all the formalities of a trial, such as the right to cross-examine witnesses, the core constitutional requirement of notice and an opportunity to be heard remains paramount. The court's central holding establishes a critical boundary: schools cannot use 'secret evidence' to justify an expulsion. This precedent guides school districts to ensure their disciplinary procedures, while flexible, are fundamentally fair by requiring full disclosure of the evidence relied upon by the decision-maker.
