Colorado’s second-highest court reversed an incarcerated man’s disciplinary conviction for allegedly assaulting a prison employee last week, concluding the man was wrongly denied the ability to question a key witness.

David Ruffin resided at the Colorado State Penitentiary in July 2022 when he became upset at a directive to either shower or go to his room. Ruffin picked up trash from the floor of a common area, walked to a slot made for trays and shoved the trash through the slot. In the process, he allegedly hit the hand of Officer Jacob Cervantes, who was on the other side of the tray slot.

In the subsequent disciplinary proceeding, Ruffin admitted to threatening a staff member, but denied that he assaulted Cervantes. Ruffin attempted to call Cervantes as a witness, arguing the officer’s report of the assault contradicted parts of a surveillance video.

The hearing officer, Sandy Zylsrya, refused to allow Cervantes to testify on the grounds that “he wrote a report,” which “says exactly what happened in the video.”

Zylsrya convicted Ruffin of assault and revoked 42 days of privileges as a sentence. Ruffin then sought judicial review, alleging the hearing officer violated his due process right to call witnesses. 

Without addressing Ruffin’s contention directly, Magistrate Larry D. Allen upheld the disciplinary conviction because there was “some evidence supporting the hearing officer’s decision.” District Court Judge Lynette M. Wenner, also without elaboration, agreed Ruffin “was afforded the required due process.”

Representing himself, Ruffin turned to the Court of Appeals. He maintained he did not strike Cervantes’ hand and the questions he intended to ask at the disciplinary hearing would have cast doubt on whether an assault occurred.

“While Mr. Ruffin does insist that he could question Officer Cervantes about how it was ‘physically impossible’ for the officer’s hand to be in front of the tray slot,” responded Assistant Attorney General Christopher Van Hall, “those questions are repetitious given there is also video that shows altercation.”

But a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals sided with Ruffin, in large part because of the video.

“First, we are troubled by the hearing officer’s apparent conclusion — reached before all the evidence had been presented — that Cervantes’s report accurately reflected the events that were captured in the video. Due process demands that the hearing officer consider all the evidence before reaching such a dispositive conclusion,” wrote Judge Matthew D. Grove in the Sept. 19 opinion.

Grove added that, in the panel’s view, the video did not line up with Cervantes’ written report after all.

The hearing officer’s insistence that Cervantes’ written report was a reason to not call him as a witness “betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of an inmate’s due process rights in the prison disciplinary context,” Grove wrote. “(C)hallenging the credibility of a complaining officer by highlighting inconsistencies between his report and other available evidence is at the heart of the limited due process right afforded to a prisoner facing disciplinary charges.”

Because the hearing officer’s error affected Ruffin’s rights, the panel reversed his disciplinary conviction.

The case is Ruffin v. Executive Director et al.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to correct the identity of the hearing officer.