Jurors from Sunday's open honor trial said there was some confusion about the charge of lying that was brought against third-year Engineering student Steve Gilday.
Three jurors spoke to The Cavalier Daily on condition of anonymity for this story.
On Sunday, a jury of 10 random students found Gilday not guilty of cheating by falsifying a page of a BIOL 301 exam which he submitted for a re-grade. However, the jury found him guilty of lying to his professor, Laura Galloway.
"There was substantial confusion on behalf of the jurors ... as to whether or not the act of lying was to be considered independently of anything except [Gilday's] discussion with his professor," the first juror said.
The first juror said that although trial chair Trevor McFadden eventually instructed the jury panel to focus on the conversation that took place between Gilday and Biology Prof. Laura Galloway, "there were lingering uncertainties."
The third juror echoed these sentiments.
"It was unclear exactly what the exact charge was from the community," that juror said. "I think some students on jury looked at the lie in the professor's office and some looked at the fake page."
In the factual contentions presented in the evidence packet and at the beginning of the trial, the counsel for the community stated, "Mr. Gilday is also accused of lying about any alterations made to his paper when confronted by his professor, Laura Galloway."
According to the second juror, not all jurors seemed confused about these charges, "but there was a question as to whether the charge of lying went beyond lying to the professor."
The jury properly considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before and after the lie occurred, McFadden said.
"Nobody voiced any outstanding confusion that I'm aware of," he added.
Both the first and second jurors said they believed others jurors found Gilday guilty at least partially on the basis of submitting a fabricated page.
"I can see how someone might say you shouldn't even consider the falsified paper, but I think you have to look at the overall situation and try to determine if it's serious," the second juror said. He added that he thought the jury was within the range of legitimate action.
Gilday said he "thought having the two charges combined in one trial could be potentially confusing for a jury." Gilday also said he thought combining the two charges had "a huge effect on the vote and what the verdict was."
Gilday has until 5 p.m. today to file for an expedited appeal of his honor conviction, according to Vice Chair for Trials Stewart Ackerly. Gilday has indicated that he will file such an appeal.
Gilday will be allowed to stay enrolled in classes and live in University housing until a decision is rendered, Ackerly added.
Ackerly explained that after filing the appeal, Gilday has 14 days to file a brief which outlines the grounds for appeal. The Honor executive committee will then review the brief and decide whether or not to send the appeal to a three-person panel composed of Honor members.
This panel would then review the brief and investigate the claims. It can then decide whether to recommend "relief" or to uphold the original verdict. Relief can be a new investigation panel, a new trial or the dismissal of charges, Ackerly said.
According to Ackerly, this is the first year this specific appeal system has been in place. Previously, appeals could be filed on one of two tracks: appeals or grievances. Appeals dealt with everything that occurred within the trial and grievances dealt with everything outside of the trial.
In addition to the expedited appeal process, a convicted student can also appeal based on "good cause" or new evidence.
Good cause includes grievances that deal with fundamental fairness or timeliness. These appeals must be submitted within 30 days of the trial's conclusion. The convicted student has two years to submit new evidence, Ackerly said.
Read More
Student Council passes resolution to uphold student voices during presidential search
By Lauren Seeliger | 11 hours agoThe resolution requests that five students be included on the search committee, and that the Board of Visitors provides key updates to the student body throughout the search process.
Senior VP for Operations Colette Sheehy looks back at her career at the University
By Brandon Kile | 2 days agoSheehy’s role involved overseeing the work of around 2,500 University employees, including custodians, architects and engineers.
Will the Faculty Senate’s no-confidence vote impact the U.Va. Board of Visitors?
By Brandon Kile | 3 days agoIn many cases, a no-confidence vote may soon be followed by steps taken to remove the leadership that may be acting against the wishes of a community.
