Student Conduct & Regulations 64|Page www.kutztown.edu/thekey question is relevant. Cross-examination questions that are duplicative of those already asked, including by the Decision Maker(s] may be deemed irrelevant if they have been asked and answered. 6) The Decision Maker(s) must explain to the Party proposing the question any decision to exclude a question as not relevant. 7) The Decision Maker(s) may not draw an inference about a determination of regarding responsibility based solely on a Party's or Witness's absence from the hearing or refusal to answer cross-examination or other questions. 8) Failure to answer questions at the hearing may impact the information the Decision Maker(s) will consider. In accordance with due process requirements applicable to Pennsylvania universities, hearings must include the opportunity to cross-examine individuals when credibility determinations are at issue. As such, if any Witness or Party is not available for cross-examination, the Decision Maker(s) must determine the admissibility of and weight to be given to that Party’s or Witness’s prior statements. 9. Decisions A. General Considerations for Evaluating Testimony and Evidence 1) While the opportunity for cross-examination is required in all hearings under this Policy, determinations regarding responsibility may be based in part, or entirely, on documentary, audiovisual, and digital evidence, as warranted in the reasoned judgment of the Decision Maker(s). 2) Hearsay evidence may not be used to establish a fact necessary to establish responsibility consistent with the requirements under Chapter 505 of Title 22 of the Pennsylvania Code concerning Student Personnel. 3) Decision Maker(s) shall not draw inferences regarding a Party or Witness’ credibility based on the Party or Witness’ status as a Complainant, Respondent, or Witness, nor shall it base its judgments in stereotypes about how a Party or Witness would or should act under the circumstances. 4) Generally, credibility judgments should rest on the demeanor of the Party or Witness, the plausibility of their testimony, the consistency of their testimony, and its reliability in light of corroborating or conflicting testimony or evidence. 5) Credibility judgments should not rest on whether a Party or Witness’ testimony is non-linear or incomplete, or if the Party or Witness is displaying stress or anxiety. 6) Where a Party or Witness’ conduct or statements demonstrate that the Party or Witness is engaging in retaliatory conduct, including but not limited to witness tampering and intimidation, the Decision Maker(s) may draw an adverse inference as to that Party or Witness’ credibility. 7) Decision Maker(s) will afford the highest weight relative to other testimony to first-hand testimony by Parties and Witnesses regarding their own memory of specific facts that occurred. Both inculpatory and exculpatory (i.e., tending to prove and disprove the allegations) evidence will be weighed in equal fashion. 8) The Final Rule requires the University to admit and allow testimony regarding polygraph tests (“lie detector tests”) and other procedures that are outside of standard use in academic and nonacademic conduct processes. While the processes and testimony about them will be allowed to testify and be crossed as required by the Final Rule, the Decision Maker(s) will be instructed to afford lower weight to such processes relative to the testimony of fact witnesses. 9) The Final Rule requires the University allow parties to call character witnesses to testify. The
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NzcxOTE=