The executive committee of the Honor Committee empaneled an appeal commission to review the March lying conviction of Steve Gilday.
The commission has 14 days to review the case, according to the Committee by-laws.
March 26, 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.
Gilday said he submitted his appeal brief over the weekend and received an e-mail from Vice Chair for Trails Jay Trickett Monday stating that a commission would be formed to consider his appeal.
The executive committee generally reviews appeal briefs; however, since four out of the five members recused themselves from the case because of conflicts of interest, other Committee members served on the panel. Trickett was the only executive committee member in the group that empaneled the appeals commission.
Honor Chair Alison Tramba would not release the names of the substitute Committee members because of confidentiality issues.
The executive committee determines whether the dismissed student has raised a "substantial question relating to the fairness ... or the timeliness of the Honor proceedings," according to the by-laws which govern the appeals process.
If the executive committee decides such a question exists they forward the case to an appeal commission. If a student's appeal is deemed not to raise a substantial question, the executive committee can dismiss the appeal and the student would be permanently dismissed from the University.
An appeal commission is composed of three Committee members, Tramba said.
The appeal commission will investigate the grounds for appeal and make a recommendation to the Committee, Tramba said.
Recommendations can include a return to investigation, a return to investigation panel, dropping the case or no relief, Tramba added.
According to Tramba the appeal commission can also request an investigator who will further look into the facts of the case.
That investigation might include talking with investigators from the original case, meeting with witnesses again or "whatever is deemed necessary" by the commission, Tramba said.
According to Tramba, the commission will then vote whether or not to grant relief on the standard that the grounds for the appeal "very likely affected the outcome of the case."
Gilday did not want to discuss the specific grounds for his appeal so as not to influence the outcome of the commission's decision.
Gilday said he was unsure how an open proceeding had affected his case.
"I wouldn't say it was detrimental," he said. "I don't know if it benefited me or not. I'm glad some members of the community were able to see the inter-workings of the Honor Committee. I think this trial has brought to light a lot of issues."
Read More
Department of Education reverses course, awards Federal Executive Institute to U.Va.
By Ford McCracken | YesterdayThe ED had previously awarded the institute to Charlottesville City Schools.
Students reflect on the life and legacy of Pope Francis
By Bertie Azqueta | YesterdayAt the University, students shared a range of perspectives on his legacy of reform, inclusivity and his impact on the global Catholic community.
What does the University’s contract with dining service Aramark entail?
By Brandon Kile | 2 days agoThe Cavalier Daily submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the University for its contract with Aramark to understand the specific terms of the agreement.
