Evidentiary standards in administrative hearings

Evidentiary standards in administrative hearings are usually more permissive than in judicial proceedings. Further, they may vary from context to context depending on establishing statutes and Administrative Procedure Acts. An example from Harvey Randall's New York Public Personnel Law blog, "Court permits tape-recorded statements provided by informants to be admitted into evidence in an administrative disciplinary hearing":

Marino E. Sannuti, a New York City police officer, was dismissed from his position after he was found guilty of conspiring with a “chop shop owner” to have at least one car stolen on his behalf. The evidence presented against Sannuti consisted of the testimony of the investigating officers and a tape recording containing statements by three informants.

Sannuti challenged his termination, contending that the commissioner’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that the record made during the disciplinary proceeding contained substantial evidence of Sannuti’s guilt of the charges filed against him.

The court said that the tape-recorded statements, although hearsay, were properly received as part of the evidence against Sannuti. The decision noted that the reliability of the informants’ statements was corroborated by their internal consistency, by facts disclosed in the investigation and, in part, by Sannuti’s own testimony.

EMM