Bryan R. Hanley v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board, et al. - Dissenting

Case Number
M2016-01223-COA-R3-CV

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding. As the majority notes, a charge against an inmate be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, defined at TDOC Policy No. 502.01(IV)(I) as “[t]he degree of proof which best accords with reason and probability and is more probable than not.” As the majority also notes, the evidence upon which Mr. Hanley’s conviction rested consisted of the two knives and Corporal Story’s statement, the salient portion of which is quoted in the majority opinion. Corporal Story did not testify and the only live witnesses were Mr. Hanley, who denied that the knives were his, and Duane Brooks, an inmate who testified in support of Mr. Hanley’s contention that the knives were left by a previous occupant of the cell.    

Authoring Judge
Judge Richard H. Dinkins
Originating Judge
Chancellor Joseph A. Woodruff
Case Name
Bryan R. Hanley v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board, et al. - Dissenting
Date Filed
Dissent or Concur
This is a dissenting opinion
Download PDF Version