Jurors from the open honor trial of third-year College students Joe Schlingbaum and Lindsey McClung early last month disagree on the exact reasoning for the not guilty verdict. Two jurors from the trial spoke with members of The Cavalier Daily on condition of anonymity in order to maintain the confidentiality of deliberations.
One juror says she thinks the verdict reflectedresulted from the insignificance of the assignment, while another says she believes the jury voted not guilty because the two students were unaware their actions violated the honor code. All 10 jurors were invited to speak to The Cavalier Daily, but only two agreed to be interviewed for this article.
A jury of 10 randomly selected students found Schlingbaum and McClung not guilty of collaborating on homework assignments for a political theory class during the spring 2005 semester. The homework assignments in question accounted for four percent of the overall grade.
In order to be found guilty of an honor offense, four-fifths of the jury must agree that the student committed the act and had dishonorable intent, meaning the student knew or should have known the act was an honor offense. If that super-majority is reached, the jury then considers whether the offense is serious enough that "open toleration of such an act impair[s] the community of trust enough to warrant permanent dismissal from the University." A majority the jury must vote guilty on the seriousness clause to result in an overall guilty verdict. Students found guilty of honor offenses are permanently expelled from the University, a punishment known as the single sanction.
Juror 1, a fourth-year College student, said she voted guilty on act/intent and not guilty on seriousness. According to Juror 1, nine out of the 10 jurors voted guilty on act/intent after about an hour of deliberation. Because this surpassed the four-fifths majority, the jury then discussed seriousness for about 15 minutes and voted. In the seriousness vote, only one juror voted guilty while the other nine voted not guilty, Juror 1 said.
Juror 2, a College student, said she also voted guilty on act/intent and not guilty on seriousness. According to Juror 2, the jury reached the not guilty verdict because Schlingbaum and McClung maintained they did not intentionally cheat.
"We did find them guilty under act and intent," Juror 2 said. "But as far as seriousness, they did not knowingly cheat and, unless they were deceiving the entire jury and the entire room, we generally believed that they did not know what they were doing was wrong."
Juror 1, however, had a different interpretation of the verdict and deliberations. She said she believes the majority of jurors voted not guilty because of the relative insignificance of the assignment.
"I think a lot of people are unwilling to hold someone accountable for an honor offense unless it's a serious one," she said. "It was just a homework assignment. While they did it, to me, it's not enough to expel them from the University."
Honor Committee Chair David Hobbs, who chaired the trial and was present for the juror's deliberations, said he disagrees with Juror 1's assessment of the verdict. Though he said it was impossible for him to know exactly why a juror chooses to vote a certain way, he does not think the jury's decision about seriousness was decided solely based on the size of the assignment.
"As far as the discussion, a lot more factors than just the size of the assignment went into the decision for seriousness," Hobbs said. "It wasn't just the percentage of the total grade that factored into jurors members minds as far as whether this particular act was serious."
Though Juror 2 said she might have voted differently if a punishment other than the single sanction were an option, she was pleased with the overall outcome of the trial.
"I think that the way the system is set up
Read More
U.Va. loses over $60 million in federal research cuts
By Bertie Azqueta | 8 hours agoThe impacted grants include three from the NIH, seven from the NEH, one from the United States Agency for International Development and four from the State Department.
Department of Education reverses course, awards Federal Executive Institute to U.Va.
By Ford McCracken | 3 days agoThe ED had previously awarded the institute to Charlottesville City Schools.
Students reflect on the life and legacy of Pope Francis
By Bertie Azqueta | 3 days agoAt the University, students shared a range of perspectives on his legacy of reform, inclusivity and his impact on the global Catholic community.
