The 17 students arrested for trespassing at Madison Hall after staging a sit-in protest April 15 were found not guilty in General District Court yesterday. Anthropology Prof. Wende Marshall was found guilty of trespassing and received a sentence of 10 days in prison, which was suspended pending two years of good behavior.

The verdict was handed down by Judge Robert Downer, Jr. who concluded that the protestors were not given the five minutes promised to them by University Chief Operating Officer Leonard Sandridge to decide between leaving the building voluntarily, accepting a summons or being arrested.

“Five minutes means five minutes,” Downer said, after weighing evidence which included a videotape of Sandridge speaking to the protesting students in the minutes leading up to the arrests and footage of the arrests.

Asst. Commonwealth’s Attorney Claude Worrell told the judge that the students actively sought arrest while defense attorney Steve Rosenfield argued that the students were not given the full five minutes promised to them by Sandridge.

The students staged a sit-in in the administrative building from the morning of April 12 until their arrest at approximately 7pm on April 15, the Saturday before Easter, in an effort to demonstrate their support for the implementation of what they term a “living wage” of $10.72 an hour for all University employees. The administration has maintained that it cannot legally implement this wage.

President Casteen, who testified at the trial, said in an e-mail that he had no reaction to the proceedings. He added that he was pleased the students did not incur a criminal record.

“I do not know what evidence was presented other than what I gave, and I do not know the judge’s reasoning,” Casteen said. “In that we do not want students to accumulate criminal convictions in the course of their time here, we are glad for them.”

Rosenfield applauded the students’ continued support for workers throughout the criminal proceedings.

“What was great about representing [these students] was that the focus was always on the workers,” said Rosenfield.

An appeal of Marshall’s conviction is “highly likely,” Rosenfield added.

According to University spokesperson Carol Wood, the students’ acquittal will facilitate their continued dialogue with administrators.

“No one at the University took any joy in seeing our students arrested and we believe that today’s decision will give all involved the opportunity to move forward,” Wood said. “I think we’ve consistently said that we want to put an adversarial relationship aside, and want to be partners with students.”

Wood added that the University’s position concerning the living wage has not changed in light of today’s verdicts.

The acquitted students were fourth-year College students Shawn Casey, Carmen Comsti, Lauren Cruickshank, Lauren Jones, Sam Kroiz, Hannah Rubenstein, Katrina Salmons, and Khalial Withen; third-year College students Sean Butterfield, Seth Croft, Zack Fields and Jillian Villars; and second-year College students Teresa Daniels, Andrew Mausert-Mooney, Nina Robbins, John Salidis, and Kevin Simowitz.

The 17 students arrested for trespassing at Madison Hall after staging a sit-in protest last month were found guilty in an open University Judiciary Committee trial yesterday.

All of the students were found guilty of violating three sections the UJC Standards of Conduct: unauthorized entry into or occupation of University facilities, intentional disruption of University activities and failing to comply with the directions of University officials acting to enforce any of the other Standards of Conduct.

The students must write a letter of apology and thanks of at least 250 words to the University Police Department, another letter of at least 250-words to the five employees whose work was interrupted during the sit-in and a 500-word letter to the administration thanking them for “their willingness to facilitate dialogue during the sit-in.”

The letters must be completed by May 15. Vice Chair for Sanctions Gavin Reddick will read the letters before forwarding them on, UJC Chair Raleigh Anne Blank said.

The convicted students staged a four-day sit-in in the administrative building last month in the hopes of having the University implement what the protestors term a “living wage” of $10.72 an hour for all employees at the University.

According to Fourth-year College student Hannah Rubenstein, the protestors were told by Vice President for Student Affairs Pat Lampkin they could stay in Madison Hall.

“I think we were as non-disruptive as possible,” Rubenstein said during the trial for guilt.

Fourth-year Carmen Costi said during the trial that the regulations set forth by the administration kept changing.

“They complained about those rules shifting and changing,” Dean of Students Penny Rue said. “They wanted to see written rules and we don’t have a detailed playbook. We were good people trying to use our best judgment.”

Rue said when it became clear negotiations had broken down on the afternoon of Saturday, April 15, Leonard Sandridge, executive vice president and chief operating officer, offered the students the option of leaving, signing a summons or being arrested.

Some students expressed confusion at exactly what a summons entailed.
“We didn’t really know what a summons was and we asked if we could speak with our lawyers,” Comsti said.

Fourth-year College students Shawn Casey, Carmen Comsti, Lauren Cruickshank, Lauren Jones, Sam Kroiz, Hannah Rubenstein, Katrina Salmons, and Khalial Withen; third-year College students Sean Butterfield, Seth Croft, Zack Fields and Jillian Villars; and second-year College students Teresa Daniels, Andrew Mausert-Mooney, Nina Robbins, John Salidis, and Kevin Simowitz all face the same sanction.

Blank said that any appeal the students wish to make must be submitted within 14 days to an impartial judicial review board comprised of administrators and students. If the board deems the sanctions to be inappropriate they can remand the case back to the UJC which will conduct a trial for evaluation of sanction.

The case was first initiated by fourth-year College student Blake Marvin.

“U.Va. bends over backwards to allow its students to protest and campaign and the students in this case went beyond the realm of constitutionally protected free speech,” Marvin said during the trial for sanction. “The University must not allow these actions to become precedent.”

Marvin also said the protestors broke rules they agreed to uphold as University students.

Assistant Dean of Students David Bynes also filed similar charges. Bynes was a dean on call the weekend of the arrests and said filing the UJC charges was protocol.

Bynes added that he was “satisfied” with the proceedings.

“This doesn’t change anything in terms of the [Living Wage] Campaign,” Simowitz said. “We are still meeting with the administration and we are still committed to everyone making enough money to live in the City of Charlottesville and until that happens we’re not going away. The campaign is not about us; it’s about workers being underpaid.”

Additionally, Mausert-Mooney and Simowitz were found not guilty of causing substantial damage to property. Mausert-Mooney was also found not guilty of disorderly conduct on University-owned property.

The executive committee of the Honor Committee has granted an extension over the weekend on the appeal process of Steven Gilday. The committee originally had until yesterday to make their decision.

Gilday was convicted of lying but cleared of cheating in an open honor trial held March 26. He filed his appeal April 17.

The appeal commission requested that an impartial investigator be assigned to the case, according to an e-mail sent to Gilday by Vice Chair for Trials Jay Trickett.

Gilday said the investigator requested an extension to give her time to contact others who may have pertinent information about the case.

The appeal commission now has until Friday to complete its review, when it will make a recommendation to the executive committee on whether to grant Gilday’s appeal.

Following the recommendation of the commission, the executive committee will make the final decision on the appeal. A decision from the executive committee is expected Monday.

“In making our decision to grant an extension, we weighed your interest in receiving a swift decision with that of ensuring that the review was complete and thorough,” Trickett wrote in the e-mail.

Trickett added that this is the first appeal granted under the new appeal processes instituted in the fall.

“In this case we wanted to make sure we had all the facts we needed to make a decision on his appeal.”

Gilday said he thinks the decision is in his best interest.

“The Honor Committee is doing the best they can to uncover the truth and talk to everyone that’s involved,” he said. “I am anxious to have the decision but I don’t want them to rush things.”