California Legal Brief

The Rule of John Doe v. Regents of the University of California is that students accused of sexual misconduct in university disciplinary proceedings have no absolute right to cross-examine accusers at a hearing when they have already had a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine those accusers under oath in related criminal proceedings, under circumstances where the university follows its own procedures and the decision-maker has access to sworn testimony transcripts from the criminal case.

Appeal from judgment after petition for writ of administrative mandamus denied in Superior Court, Alameda County.

Plaintiff Appellant was John Doe — the university student who was expelled after being found to have committed sexual assault against two female students.

Defendant Respondent was Regents of the University of California — the university that conducted the disciplinary proceedings and expelled Doe.

The suit sounded in administrative mandamus challenging university disciplinary action. No cross-claims were filed.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that in March 2019, three UC Berkeley female students filed complaints alleging that in three separate incidents between November 2017 and March 2019, an intoxicated Doe became violent and forced them to engage in sexual conduct without consent. Criminal charges were filed, and two complainants testified for over two days at a preliminary hearing, including vigorous cross-examination by Doe's attorney. The criminal case resolved in February 2021 with a plea agreement. Meanwhile, university proceedings under "Appendix E" procedures culminated in a Stage Four hearing in August 2021, where Doe testified but the complainants declined to attend. Hearing officer Liz Paris issued a 53-page decision finding violations regarding two complainants based on their criminal court testimony transcripts and other evidence, resulting in Doe's expulsion.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Doe's petition for writ of administrative mandamus, ruling that Doe's opportunity to cross-examine complainants during criminal proceedings, combined with his opportunity to cross-examine other witnesses at the administrative hearing, satisfied due process requirements, and that any delay in proceedings was not prejudicial.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether Doe was denied due process by not having the opportunity to cross-examine complainants at the university disciplinary hearing. 2. Whether Doe was prejudiced by delay in the university proceedings.

The Appellate Court held that no due process violation occurred where the accused student had already cross-examined the accusers under oath for several hours in related criminal proceedings through counsel, the university followed its own procedures, and the hearing officer properly relied on sworn testimony transcripts along with other evidence to make credibility determinations.

The case is inapplicable when the accused student has not had any prior meaningful opportunity to cross-examine accusers under oath, when the university fails to follow its own established procedures, when no sworn testimony from accusers exists from other proceedings, or when there is actual prejudice from procedural delays that affects the outcome.

The case leaves open what procedures would be required when no criminal proceedings exist, what constitutes sufficient "indirect" cross-examination methods, the extent to which universities must accommodate requests for remote testimony by accusers, and how the new federal Title IX regulations may affect due process requirements.