Do the accused in State administrative proceedings have a Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses whose written testimony serves as evidence against the accused?

QUESTION PRESENTED Call-A-Head Portable Toilets, Inc., Call-A-Head Corp., and Charles W. Howard were convicted in a quasi-criminal administrative proceeding of three charges issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation based solely upon a “criminal court information and summons (ticket)” (App. 141)! issued by an Environmental Conservation Officer who was not called as a witness, did not testify, and was not cross-examined at the Hearing, and whose last known address was purposely withheld by the prosecutor to prevent Call-A-Head Portable Toilets, Inc., Call-A-Head Corp., and Charles W. Howard from calling the Environmental Conservation Officer as a witness at the Hearing. It was the New York State Attorney General’s position before the New York State Court of Appeals that the Sixth Amendment does not apply in civil cases, including administrative proceedings like the one at issue in this case. This case thus poses the important question: Do the accused in State administrative proceedings have a Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses whose written testimony serves as evidence against the accused? 1 “App __” refers to pages in the