New court ruling recognizing a due process right to cross-examination at a public institution

Ruling here. Excerpt (pp 10-11):

'Defendants maintain that the UC disciplinary process does not prohibit cross-examination. Instead, parties are able to submit questions to the ARC Chair who may in his or her discretion, ask those questions to the witnesses at the hearing. Defendants explain that the reason cross-examination was unavailable in this case was because Jane Roe did not attend the disciplinary hearing. The Court acknowledges that in some cases, this format of cross-examination may not constitute a due process violation. However, in this case, Plaintiff was effectively denied the right to cross-examination because he was not notified in advance of the hearing that Jane Roe would not be present at the ARC Hearing. It was plain at the hearing that Plaintiff intended to ask certain questions, but because Jane Roe was not present at the hearing, he was not able to ask those questions. While this is not to say that UC’s procedures must require the complainant to be present, at the very least, Plaintiff should have had the opportunity to submit written cross-examination questions to the ARC Chair in accordance with the Student Code of Conduct.'