prison disciplinary hearing in Pennsylvania

2023Further, “a report from a correctional officer, even if disputed by the inmate and supported by no other evidence, legally suffices as ‘some evidence’ upon which to base a prison disciplinary violation[.]” Id.

2020Further, “a report from a correctional officer, even if disputed by the inmate and supported by no other evidence, legally suffices as ‘some evidence’ upon which to base a prison disciplinary violation[.]” Id.

2014We noted that this inference “is akin to the well established rule in civil proceedings that a party’s failure to testify can support an inference that whatever testimony he could have given would have been unfavorable to him.” Harmon, 713 A.2d at 623 .

2014We acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court in Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 , 96 S.Ct. 1551 , 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976), held that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not violated by a factfinder in a prison disciplinary hearing granting a negative inference to a prisoner’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to evidence introduced against him.

2014We acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court in Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 , 96 S.Ct. 1551 , 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976), held that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not violated by a factfinder in a prison disciplinary hearing granting a negative inference to a prisoner’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to evidence introduced against him.

2003We adopt the reasoning of the court in Harris and hold that section 8127 of the Code does not prohibit the Commonwealth from withholding a portion of an inmate’s compensation to satisfy a restitution penalty imposed as a result of a prison disciplinary hearing.” Id. at 560-61, 552 A.2d at 753 . (footnote omitted) The federal cases which have analyzed similar claims either do not recognize a property interest in prison earnings, or when they do, find the interest minimal and one which can be trumped by a legitimate government interest in paying costs or restitution.

2003See e.g., Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 1997) (involving “involuntary” deductions from Berks County inmates prison accounts to pay for medical care); James v. Quinlan, 866 F.2d 627 (3d Cir. 1989) (upholding 50 percent deductions for court ordered restitution, fines and costs, obligations to the United States and the like, and finding no liberty or property interest in job assignments); Dorman v. Thornburgh, 955 F.2d 57 (D.C.

2003See e.g., Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 1997) (involving “involuntary” deductions from Berks County inmates prison accounts to pay for medical care); James v. Quinlan, 866 F.2d 627 (3d Cir. 1989) (upholding 50 percent deductions for court ordered restitution, fines and costs, obligations to the United States and the like, and finding no liberty or property interest in job assignments); Dorman v. Thornburgh, 955 F.2d 57 (D.C.