OSTEEN V. HENLEY
13 F.2d 221 (7th Cir. 1993)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Osteen (P) challenged a district court dismissal of his suit against
Henley for his dismissal in violation of due process of law.
FACTS: Osteen (P), an undergraduate at Northern Illinois University, was leaving a bar
with two male friends and the girlfriend of one of them. The girlfriend began 'mouthing off
to another student who was outside of a bar who decided to mouth off to her and the two of
them got in an argument. The three males with her were football players. P, without one
word, stomps this guy in the head with some cowboy boots breaking the other student's nose.
A student friend of the one whom P had just assaulted, approached P, who again without a
word 'broke his face with one punch.' Bolles, the judicial officer at the school initiated
disciplinary proceedings. P and Bolles met and P signed a form in which he plead guilty to
the charges but requested a two-year expulsion. A hearing was held before an appeals board
of an assistant judicial officer, a faulty member, and two students. P was represented by a
student advocate. The board agreed with the two-year sanction. The expulsion was upheld but
delayed until the end of the semester. P appealed to the University Vice President for
student affairs who upheld the penalty. This led to P's lawsuit (dismissed by the district
court), in which P challenges the expulsion as a deprivation of property without due process
of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. P attacks a number of features of the
disciplinary proceeding. Bolles had played a dual role as judge and prosecutor. The
presiding officer of the appellate tribunal was Bolles's assistant. She cut off P's advocate
on the ground that the issue of guilt was not before the board, just the issue of sanction,
when the advocate was trying to give P's version of the assaults. P was not allowed to
cross-examine. P's real lawyer was not permitted to participate in the proceedings. P also
alleges Bolles had induced P to plead guilty on the representation that on appeal the
two-year expulsion would be rescinded--then (as we know) turned around and argued
passionately to the appeals board for expulsion.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment