Doe v. Baum: cross-examination as a due process right.
Baum is the case that established cross-examination as a matter of constitutional due process rather than institutional generosity, and its independence from the regulations is what makes it durable.
The holding, precisely.
The Sixth Circuit held that where a public university’s disciplinary determination depends on a choice between competing accounts - that is, where credibility is at issue - due process requires that the accused be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses. The questioning need not be conducted by the accused personally; through an advisor or through the panel is sufficient. What is not sufficient is no opportunity at all.
Why it outlasts regulatory change.
The 2020 regulations require cross-examination at postsecondary live hearings, so within the Sixth Circuit the two currently overlap. They are not equally durable. The regulations were nearly replaced in 2024 by a rule that would have removed the hearing requirement entirely, and a future rulemaking may try again. Baum is a constitutional holding and does not move with the Department’s position - which makes it the argument of last resort if the regulatory floor drops.
Engaging the trigger.
The right attaches where credibility is genuinely at issue, which is true in the overwhelming majority of campus sexual misconduct matters and is frequently left implicit. Stating it expressly and in writing - that there is no independent corroboration, that the accounts conflict, and that the determination will rest on an assessment of which is believed - is the step that engages the holding and creates the record for any later claim.
The public-private line.
Baum and Purdue are both constitutional cases and both run against state actors. At a private university the analogous argument is contractual, or in some jurisdictions built on a fair-procedure doctrine. That means the first question in any matter where these authorities might be invoked is the institution’s legal character, and it should be settled at intake rather than assumed.
Why you should call us.
If you are scrolling through search results trying to find someone to defend you, your search is over. You have found Spodek Law Group P.C. - and we are not your average defense firm. We know a thing or two about defending the accused in campus cases - and in the criminal courts that run alongside them. Over 50 years of combined experience, some of the toughest cases in the country, and we have come out on top. We have seen it all, and we empathise with you. We understand how frightening this is, and we have a legal team who can fight and win.
Unlike other attorneys who care about their reputation with the administrators and the prosecutors, our only goal is getting you the best outcome. We owe loyalty to only you. Our lawyers listen to you, your fears, and your goals. We care about your story, and that is where the work begins - by understanding and listening to you.
On billing, we are transparent about our fees, and there are no surprises. Choosing a lawyer is a big deal and cost is a real issue, so we are committed to being your champion irrespective of your ability to pay. Our firm has a simple belief: lawyers should only take on clients whom they can truly help. Many firms are mills that take every case through the door. We do not.
Working with us starts with a risk-free consultation, in person or over the phone. You can ask us anything, for as long as it takes, and we encourage you to ask the tough questions. We are available 24/7, we practise coast to coast, and every client has direct access to a partner. Call 212 300 5196 - an attorney answers.
