Case Description
the court held that the fact that an assistant attorney general advised a medical board or rulemaking and complaint issuance and also sought a rehearing in a disciplinary hearing did not give rise to a due process violation. The court said, “We fail to see how the assistant attorney general caused the board to become a prosecutor. The assistant attorney general did at times advise the board in its rulemaking and complaint-filing capacity. But this fact did not, standing alone, impute the prosecutorial role to the board. The board did not prosecute the case; the attorney general did. It is neither unlawful nor uncommon for the attorney general to both give advice to various administrative agencies, and thereafter prosecute actions brought by the agency”
