The Judicial Review Board ended the University disciplinary saga involving rising fourth-year College students Richard Smith and Harrison Kerr Tigrett last week by denying their appeals, sources close to the case said yesterday.
Smith declined to comment yesterday but said in a June 14 interview with The Cavalier Daily that he would appeal President John T. Casteen III's decision to suspend him for two years for his involvement in the Nov. 21, 1997 assault on Alexander "Sandy" Kory, then a first-year College student.
Kory has said he sustained a broken jaw during the incident and incurred about $3,000 in medical bills.
In his June 14 interview, Smith said he would like to earn his diploma from the University, but probably would not wait two years to finish at the University if his appeal was denied.
Smith also said in the interview that he might sue the University if his appeal was turned down.
Kory's family was pleased with the JRB's decision.
"I know that the Korys are glad that it is over," said their attorney, Lloyd Snook. "One of Sandy's concerns from a personal, psychological point was that it was very disconcerting to have Richard Smith in his classes, and Smith has indicated that he would not return to the University if the appeal was denied."
Kory's mother, Kaye Kory, said she was "delighted.
"We are also pleased that the University has a sense of moral dignity even at this late date," she said.
Bradley Kintz, the third student involved in the assault, received a one semester suspension and did not appeal.
Casteen gave harsher sanctions to Smith and Tigrett than those recommended by a special fact-finding panel appointed by William W. Harmon, vice president for student affairs. The panel tried the three students May 17.
The fact-finding panel recommended to Casteen that he suspend Smith for two consecutive semesters and that Tigrett and Kintz each be suspended for one semester. The University Judiciary Committee originally expelled Smith, Kintz and Tigrett Nov. 21.
The students then appealed their expulsions to the JRB and were granted a new trial. But that trial never took place as the trial chairwoman resigned from the case and the three student prosecutors quit in fear of being sued.
The Committee then sent the case to Harmon for adjudication. The twists and turns of the case sparked outrage among the student body, culminating in an April rally on the Lawn urging the Committee to re-expel Smith, Kintz and Tigrett.
Committee Chairman Brian Hudak said because of confidentiality rules, he cannot confirm the existence of the UJC case.
But he said the intense publicity surrounding the Committee has been a mixed blessing.
"Since the press has set a trend in writing about alleged Judiciary Committee trials, it puts a greater burden on us to maintain confidentiality," Hudak said.
But he said the publicity has served to educate the University about the UJC.
He added that the Committee is typically kept informed of case results after they leave the Committee's hands.
"Whenever we refer cases to Harmon, he sends us a copy of what results he came up with," Hudak said.
He declined to comment on whether this happened in the Kory v. Smith, Kintz and Tigrett case.
W. Stevenson Hopson IV, Judicial Review Board Chairman and senior assistant Law School Dean, declined to comment.