Baxter v. Palmigiano
425 U.S. 308 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prison inmate's silence during a disciplinary hearing may be used as an adverse inference of guilt against them, provided it is not the sole basis for the finding. Inmates in such hearings do not have a constitutional right to retained or appointed counsel, even when the alleged misconduct could also be prosecuted as a crime.
Facts:
- Palmigiano, an inmate at a Rhode Island correctional institution, was charged by officers with inciting a disturbance that could have resulted in a riot.
- He was summoned to appear before the prison's Disciplinary Board for a hearing on the charge.
- The Board advised Palmigiano that the alleged misconduct might also be referred for criminal prosecution under state law.
- Palmigiano was informed that he had the right to remain silent during the hearing, but that his silence would be used as evidence against him.
- The Board denied Palmigiano's request to have his attorney present during the hearing, though he was provided with a counsel-substitute.
- Following his counsel-substitute's advice, Palmigiano chose to remain silent throughout the hearing.
- The Disciplinary Board found Palmigiano guilty, basing its decision on correctional officers' reports and his silence.
- As a result, Palmigiano was sentenced to 30 days in punitive segregation and received a downgrade in his classification status.
Procedural Posture:
- Palmigiano filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, alleging his due process rights were violated.
- The district court, a trial court, held a hearing and denied relief to Palmigiano.
- Palmigiano (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the district court, finding a due process violation.
- Prison officials (as petitioners) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
- The Supreme Court vacated the appellate judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the intervening decision in Wolff v. McDonnell.
- On remand, the First Circuit reaffirmed its prior decision, holding that an inmate’s silence cannot be used against them.
- Prison officials (as petitioners) again petitioned for, and were granted, a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, as applied to the states, prohibit prison officials from drawing an adverse inference of guilt from an inmate's silence at a disciplinary hearing where the conduct at issue could also be subject to criminal prosecution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. The Fifth Amendment does not forbid drawing an adverse inference from an inmate's silence in a non-criminal prison disciplinary proceeding. Prison disciplinary hearings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and therefore the rule from Griffin v. California, which prohibits adverse inferences from a defendant's silence in a criminal trial, does not apply. These proceedings are more analogous to civil cases, where the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against a party who refuses to testify. Unlike the coercion found in the Garrity-Lefkowitz line of cases, an inmate is not automatically found guilty solely for remaining silent; the decision must be based on substantial evidence, of which silence is merely one part. The Court also reaffirmed its holding in Wolff v. McDonnell that inmates do not have a right to retained or appointed counsel in disciplinary hearings, and further held that prison officials are not constitutionally required to provide a written explanation for denying an inmate the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Brennan
Yes. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from imposing any substantial sanction that makes an individual's exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination 'costly.' The majority misreads the Garrity-Lefkowitz precedents; the key issue is not whether a penalty is 'automatic' but whether a penalty is imposed for remaining silent. A sentence of 30 days in punitive segregation is a significant penalty that unconstitutionally compels an inmate to choose between defending themselves in a disciplinary hearing and preserving their Fifth Amendment privilege for a potential future criminal trial. Allowing the government to benefit from an inmate's silence encourages circumvention of the adversarial system. The compulsion is obvious, as the inmate is faced with the choice of self-incrimination or certain punishment, which violates the core principles of the Fifth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and narrows the scope of due process rights for prisoners previously outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell, reinforcing that prison disciplinary hearings are not equivalent to criminal trials. By permitting an adverse inference from an inmate's silence, the Court creates a significant dilemma for inmates whose conduct is also criminal, forcing a choice between defending themselves administratively and preserving their Fifth Amendment rights for criminal proceedings. The ruling grants substantial discretion to prison officials, prioritizing institutional security and administrative efficiency over the formal procedural protections afforded in criminal courts. This case solidifies a more deferential approach to prison administration and limits the extension of constitutional trial rights into the correctional environment.
Unlock the full brief for Baxter v. Palmigiano