{"id":115,"date":"2026-03-06T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-06T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=115"},"modified":"2026-03-06T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-03-06T12:00:00","slug":"doe-v-regents-uc-berkeley-expulsion-due-process-cross-examination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=115","title":{"rendered":"Doe v. Regents of the University of California \u2014 UC Berkeley’s expulsion of student for sexual misconduct affirmed despite no Stage Four cross-examination"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Doe v. Regents of the University of California<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
1st District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-03-06<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
A170234<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Title IX, university disciplinary proceedings, due process, cross-examination, sexual misconduct, administrative mandamus, harmless error, Appendix E<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

John Doe was a student at the University of California, Berkeley when, in March 2019, three female students filed sexual misconduct complaints against him in connection with three separate incidents in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The university suspended Doe on an interim basis. The Alameda County District Attorney also charged him with multiple felony counts arising from the same conduct, and a multi-day preliminary hearing in 2019 included extensive cross-examination of two of the complainants by the same defense counsel who would later represent Doe in the university proceeding. The criminal case ultimately resolved in February 2021 by a plea agreement.<\/p>\n

The university’s investigation followed its “Appendix E” framework for sexual violence and harassment cases not covered by the federal Title IX regulations. After several procedural stages, the matter reached a Stage Four investigative hearing before a hearing officer. Doe and his counsel were able to question witnesses indirectly, but the framework did not allow direct attorney cross-examination of the complainants. The hearing officer issued a 53-page report sustaining the allegations of two of the complainants. The university expelled Doe, and his internal appeal was unsuccessful.<\/p>\n

Doe filed a writ petition in superior court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 challenging the expulsion. The trial court denied the writ in a comprehensive order. On appeal, Doe pressed two arguments: that he was denied due process because he could not directly cross-examine the complainants at the Stage Four hearing, and that the university’s 17-month investigation prejudiced him by causing witnesses to become unavailable.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The First District Court of Appeal, Division Two, affirmed. On the cross-examination issue, the court explained that the procedural protections required for non-Title IX university disciplinary proceedings depend on context, with courts weighing the interests at stake, the risk of erroneous deprivation under existing procedures, and the burden on the institution. While direct cross-examination is required in some Title IX-covered proceedings, it is not always required outside that framework, and the university provided a meaningful alternative through structured questioning by the hearing officer.<\/p>\n

More importantly, even assuming Doe was entitled to direct cross-examination, the court held the absence of it was harmless on this record. Doe’s same attorney had vigorously cross-examined two of the complainants for many hours during the criminal preliminary hearing, producing extensive transcripts that the hearing officer reviewed. Doe was also able to submit detailed written questions and to challenge the credibility of the complainants through other means. He failed to identify any specific impeachment opportunity that he could have used at the Stage Four hearing that he had not already exploited.<\/p>\n

On the delay issue, the court found that the 17-month investigation was justified by the complexity of the case, including three separate incidents involving three complainants, 25 interviews of witnesses and parties, and the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Doe’s general claim that some witnesses graduated and became unavailable did not establish prejudice because he did not identify any specific witness whose testimony would have changed the outcome.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n