Jurors from Sunday's open honor trial said they differ in their opinions about the issues that affected their deliberations. Four jurors from the trial spoke with The Cavalier Daily about the experience on the condition of anonymity.
A random panel of 10 student jurors found third-year Engineering student Steve Gilday guilty of lying about a reproduced re-grade submission in a biology class last semester. They also found him not guilty of cheating during the same proceedings.
A guilty verdict in an honor trial has two components: Four-fifths of jurors must vote to convict on the criterion of act and intent, and a simple majority must vote to convict on the criterion of seriousness. The language of "seriousness" was changed to "not trivial" by voters in a referendum this spring for cases initiated after March 1. "Seriousness" was the standard in Gilday's trial.
Jurors said that only two out of 10 jurors voted to convict Gilday of cheating on the criterion of act and intent. Therefore, no vote was held on the standard of seriousness. Gilday was unanimously found guilty of act and intent to lie. Seven of the jurors felt the act was serious enough to find the accused guilty of an honor offense.
Two of the jurors confirmed the vote tallies while another two declined to comment on the matter because they said they were instructed not to. All 10 jurors were invited to speak to The Cavalier Daily, but only four agreed to be interviewed for this article.
The first juror said panelists were discouraged by the trial chair, Honor Vice Chair for Services Trevor McFadden, from discussing the academic background of the student, a fact confirmed by other jurors.
"The disclosure that Gilday was a stellar student, in fact, a Jefferson and Rodman Scholar, would have been absolutely pertinent to my character assessment," the first juror said. "In my opinion, I believe this information would undoubtedly have influenced the decision of other jurors as well."
According to McFadden and Honor Committee Chair David Hobbs, it is standard procedure not to discuss academic background that is irrelevant to the case.
"I don't remember anyone wanting to ask that question," McFadden said. "As a general rule we feel like grades outside the class are irrelevant unless there is some issue there that would make it relevant. They knew he was a good student overall."
Hobbs added it would not be unusual to tell jury members to disregard academic background "because that would be part of a broader instruction to focus on only on the particular act in question."
The second juror, however, said knowing the accused's background would not have changed his or her decision.
"[Gilday] had admitted to lying in an e-mail to his professor," the second juror said. "So the act and intent was clear and obviously the decision."
Jurors also differed in their interpretations of the evidence which ultimately resulted in a guilty verdict.
According to the second juror, details in the scanned pages of the exam in question led that juror to believe that although Gilday did earn eight out of eight points on the disputed test question, he had not changed the answers on the page he submitted.
The third juror, however, expressed an opinion that the pages could have easily been fabricated.
Jurors also left the trial room with differing opinions about the state of the honor system.
The second juror, who had previously initiated an honor case, said this interaction with the system was much more pleasing.
Others reversed previously held positive feelings about Honor.
The first juror said he or she went into the trial "a strong single sanction supporter" but now feels the "enormous consequences at stake are disproportionate."
The fourth juror saw the trial as an educational experience and serving on an Honor jury has caused him or her to "question [Honor] a little more, but not necessarily in a negative way"
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.
