The two students who were acquitted in the open honor trial last Sunday said the experience changed some of their opinions of the honor system.
Although they were acquitted of honor charges on the seriousness clause, third-year College students Joe Schlingbaum and Lindsey McClung said they believe there was confusion that led the jury to decide the students' committed and had the intent to commit an honor violation.
Act, intent and seriousness are the three criteria for a guilty verdict in an honor trial. Dismissal from the University is the only sanction.
In its deliberations, an honor jury votes first on act and intent together, which requires a four-fifths majority. If the jury finds a student has violated act and intent, the jury votes on seriousness, which requires a simple majority.
The acquitted students said they suspect the jury confused doubts about intent with doubts about seriousness because act and intent are voted on together.
"I have no doubt that if they were to have voted on act, intent and seriousness [separately], that we would have been found innocent of two of the three," Schlingbaum said.
Honor Committee Chair David Hobbs, who chaired the trial and sat in on jury deliberations, said he does not believe there was confusion in the jury room.
"The jury came to the conclusion that the students in the trial committed the act and knew and should have known that the act in question was an honor offense," Hobbs said. "When they consider seriousness, I think if a particular jury member had convicted on the 'should have known [standard],' that may have played into the decision for seriousness."
The Honor Committee's definition of dishonest intent includes whether the student knew or should have known whether he/she was violating the honor code.Serious is defined by whether open tolerance of the act would be inconsistent with the community of trust.
The jury also finished deliberations in a little over an hour, and the relatively short time suggests its members' unwillingness to convict, Schlingbaum said.
From their experience, the students said they would like to see changes made in the jury deliberation procedure.
"I think the jury should have the option to vote on the [act, intent, and seriousness] separately," Schlingbaum said. "I'm not saying it should be required -- I just think the option should be there, and I think it would have been exercised in this instance."
Juries typically keep act and intent separate, Hobbs said. Juries first talk about act and then intent in deliberations.
The acquitted students voiced other criticisms of the honor process, especially leading up to the trial.
McClung said that before her Investigative Panel, her advisor informed her that the confidential transcript of her interview had been misplaced.
"They were very insistent that it had never left the honor offices, but they couldn't tell me where it was," McClung said.
Schlingbaum and McClung were also critical of the professionalism at the Investigative Panel.
"We went into the I-panel room deadly serious, only to see the people in there laughing and joking about something else," Schlingbaum said.
Professionalism is very important to the Honor Committee, according to Hobbs.
"Professionalism is one of the top priorities of the honor system -- professionalism and confidentiality of everyone that works with the system," he said.
The students praised the conduct of their advisers and counsels, as well as the trial proceedings.
"The trial itself was very professional, very excellent," Schlingbaum said.
Schlingbaum and McClung said the criteria upon which they were found not guilty does not change the outcome of the trial.
"Regardless of how you dissect it, the jury decided collectively that we did not break the honor code," Schlingbaum said.
McClung added that the University community shouldn't think that the only reason she is still here is the seriousness clause.
Read More
Shots fired reported at 100 block of Harmon Street, no injuries reported
By Thomas Baxter | 4 days agoThis is the first community alert of June.
Full Board discusses financial aid challenges, medical research and entrepreneurship
By Thomas Baxter | 5 days agoBoard members discussed the Pan-University Entrepreneurship Initiative, a project that aims to help develop more entrepreneurial ventures at the University.
Finance Committee approves 2024-25 operating budget and Major Capital Plan
By Zackary Holt | 5 days agoThe proposed 2024-25 fiscal year budget for the Academic Division includes a 6.8 percent increase in spending over the previous year.
