Nor may witnesses be denied based solely upon an inmate's location in a particular area of the prison. Id.; McGuinness v. Dubois, 887 F. Supp. 20, 22 (D.Mass. 1995); Abrazinski v. DuBois, 876 F. Supp. 313, 323 (D.Mass. 1995) (Tauro, C.J.) (stating that the Kenney court "found that isolation in a segregation unit alone, even if legal, is not sufficient to support a denial of witnesses"); Guyton v. DuBois, No. 92-1819, slip op. (Mass.Super.Ct. Jul. 20, 1992) (King, J.). The defendants' reliance on Devaney v. Hall, 509 F. Supp. 497, 500-501 (D.Mass. 1981) (Garrity, J.), which upheld an "across the board" policy of permitting only written statements in disciplinary hearings held in Block 10 (currently the WWSU), is misplaced; that case antedates the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Kenney.
Count 6 then went to a one-day bench trial at which Officer Treddin testified. The court's findings of fact and rulings of law can be found at McGuinness v. Dubois, 887 F. Supp. 20, 21-23 (D.Mass. 1995). In brief, the court ruled that the AAU is not a DSU.
Such conclusory allegations do not support a finding that Aiello had a personal stake in the outcome of the disciplinary hearing. McGuinness v. Dubois, 1995 WL 169500 (D.Mass.) (unpublished), aff'd 887 F. Supp. 20 (D.Mass. 1996), rev'd on other grounds, aff'd in part 75 F.3d 794 (1st Cir. 1996) (complaint challenging impartiality of disciplinary hearing officer fails "[i]n the absence of allegations of specific facts indicating bias or other improper motive"). Accordingly, the plaintiff's due process claims must fail.