misconduct by proving that he signed in at his housing unit before proceeding to the canteen. This theory is flawed because it misconstrues the nature of the charge against him. Mitchell was charged with being present in an unauthorized area, in violation of ODOC Rule 03-1. The librarian’s description of the incident makes clear that Mitchell was not authorized to be at the canteen on August 8, 2008, because he was assigned to Housing Unit B, and, as Mitchell knew, only inmates assigned to Housing Unit C were permitted to go to the canteen that day. (R. at 28-29.) Thus, whether Mitchell signed in at his housing unit before proceeding to the canteen is legally irrelevant, as Mitchell’s conduct of being present at the canteen without authorization violated Rule 03-1 in any ev .1991) (<HOLDING>). C. Lack of Evidence to Support the DHO’s
holding that a statement implying that the defendant was guilty of the crime for which he was on trial was inadmissible hearsay holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding the excluded testimony was relevant to whether a signature was that of a deceased party and since a statement regarding the issue was the only testimony that could be given by the witness no offer to prove was necessary because the substance of the evidence was apparent from the context of the question asked holding that appellants plea of guilty was not rendered independently of trial courts ruling on motion to reveal identity of confidential informant and that error was thus not waived by plea of guilty because informants testimony was relevant to and needed for defense to prosecution holding that written statement that inmate was found guilty on the basis of confidential witness testimony satisfied wolff