The honor case against third-year College student Adam Boyd, who has garnered University-wide attention for his decision to have an open trial, never will go to trial if Boyd has his way.
Boyd is planning to file a motion to have the case dismissed on the grounds that he cannot receive a fair trial due to investigatory incompetence.
"They jeopardized my case," Boyd said. "They caused it to go forward when it should not have."
Boyd's allegations have serious implications for the honor system, as he claims that investigators made major errors and failed to investigate his case fully. It would be impossible, he says, to collect pertinent information now that so much time has passed.
"If they had done this properly from the beginning, the case would not be jeopardized," Boyd said. "Now I am in the position of having to collect information myself."
Honor Chairman Christopher Smith was unable to comment on case specifics but explained the responsibilities of investigators.
"Student investigators are charged with being impartial fact finders," Smith said. "We expect all investigators to conduct a fair and full investigation, and we hope they receive the cooperation of the community."
Investigation logs show the investigators presented statements from Boyd, Astronomy Prof. Charles Tolbert, Boyd's accuser, and Raven Carter, an honor advisor who happened to be in the room when Boyd took his test. Other evidence included material from Tolbert's class and Boyd's actual test.
Boyd maintains that there were other important witnesses who should have been questioned. According to Boyd, Carter testified she saw nothing out of the ordinary, and was not the only student in the room at the time of the test, though she was the only one questioned.
Most importantly, Boyd says the secretary who gave him the test should have been interviewed. He says investigators told him they interviewed her but she had nothing important to say. No record of her questioning was included in the investigation log.
"They felt Carter's testimony warranted entry, but the secretary's, which could have resolved the entire situation, did not," Boyd said.
He says he specifically asked investigators to speak with others and ask more questions, but was told the investigation was sufficient.
"They just take the professor's word," Boyd said.
According to the Committee's bylaws, the standard of evidence required by the investigation panel to formerly charge a student is that it is "more likely than not" that they committed an offense. Boyd said he was shocked that the evidence collected met this standard.
Committee members will rule on Boyd's motion to dismiss at a pre-trial hearing that has yet to be scheduled.
Smith explained that students must show they cannot receive a fair trial in order for the committee to dismiss the case.
"This is something that has to be decided on a case to case basis," Smith said. "If there is inadequate investigation, we have to ask if it is correctable and if the student can have a fair trial."
The honor investigators in Boyd's trial did not return phone calls.
Unrelated to the motion to dismiss, Boyd is circulating a petition to hold the trial in the auditorium of Old Cabell Hall. The petition has no bearing on the Committee's decision to move the trial, and Smith indicated the trial will not be moved.
Read More
Archivist Report on Jim Ryan
By Finn Trainer and Clara Franklin | YesterdayArchivists Finn Trainer and Clara Franklin recount Jim Ryan's tenure as the 9th President of the University.
Why did Student Council vote no confidence in the Board of Visitors?
By Lauren Seeliger | 2 days agoUltimately, Dickerson said during the Aug. 8 meeting that the decision to draft this resolution was not easy but was necessary so as to fulfill Student Council’s role.
U.Va. to seek external firm in search for 10th president
By Brendon Bordwine | August 17, 2025External search firms are often retained by universities to identify and recruit candidates for top leadership positions.
