The 17 students arrested April 15 for trespassing at Madison Hall after staging a sit-in protest were found not guilty in General District Court on Monday, May 22. Anthropology Prof. Wende Marshall was found guilty of trespassing and received a sentence of 10 days in prison, which was suspended pending two years of good behavior.
Judge Robert Downer, Jr. heard the testimony of Leonard Sandridge, executive vice president and chief operating officer, Dean of Students Penny Rue, Pat Lampkin, vice president for student affairs and University and Charlottesville police officers. He alsoviewed footage of Sandridge's address to protesters in the minutes leading up to the arrests and the actual arrests. Afterwards Downer handed down the verdict, and found in favor of the defendants.
Downer acquitted the students on the grounds that they were denied the five minutes promised to them by Sandridge to leave Madison Hall and avoid arrest. As demonstrated by the videotape played in court, Sandridge announced to protesting students that they had five minutes to leave the building, accept summons or face arrest. Four minutes later, Charlottesville police entered and began arresting students.
"I'm not going to find someone guilty for not leaving when they weren't given five minutes," Downer said. "Five minutes means five minutes."
During the six-hour trial, Rosenfield discussed the fact that the students were denied the five minutes they were promised to decide between the options offered to them by Sandridge, while Asst. Commonwealth's Attorney Claude Worrell maintained that the students actively sought arrest throughout the protest.
The acquitted students were fourth-year College students Shawn Casey, Carmen Comsti, Lauren Cruickshank, Lauren Jones, Sam Kroiz, Hannah Rubenstein, Katrina Salmons and Khalial Withen; third-year College students Sean Butterfield, Seth Croft, Zack Fields and Jillian Villars; and second-year College students Teresa Daniels, Andrew Mausert-Mooney, Nina Robbins, John Salidis and Kevin Simowitz.
The students staged the sit-in protest in the administrative building from the morning of April 12 until their arrest at7 p.m. on April 15 in an effort to demonstrate their support for implementation of a "living wage" of $10.72 an hour for all University employees. The administration has maintained that it cannot legally implement this wage.
According to Rosenfield, an appeal of Marshall's conviction is "highly unlikely."
Living Wage Campaign member Benjamin Van Dyne said he was "thrilled" with the verdict.
"I think the judge was very fair, and it was a good verdict," Van Dyne said. "The prosecutor was very fair, and justice was served."
University President John T. Casteen III, who testified at the trial, said in an e-mail that he had no reaction to the proceedings. He added that he was pleased the students did not incur criminal records.
"I do not know what evidence was presented other than what I gave, and I do not know the judge's reasoning," Casteen wrote. "In that we do not want students to accumulate criminal convictions in the course of their time here, we are glad for them."
Dean of Students Penny Rue also said she was glad students did not have criminal records from the proceedings, and said that despite the acquittals, the University will not revise its policy concerning how it deals with protesters.
"We've got a policy, I think, that really protects free speech and allows us to manage our operations and balancing those things flexibly, so I don't think we have a problem with the policy," Rue said.
According to University spokesperson Carol Wood, the students' acquittal will facilitate their continued dialogue with administrators concerning the "living wage."
"We believe that today's decision will give all involved the opportunity to move forward," Wood said.
She added that the University's position concerning the living wage has not changed in light of today's verdicts.
According to Katrina Salmons, some of the 17 students, all of whom were found guilty of violating various Standards of Conduct by the University Judiciary Committee, have appealed. While Salmons stated that she could not release the names of the students, she said that they appealed because they were uncomfortable with the sanctions.
"We felt that to write the letters to the administration and police thanking them for their 'patience and willingness for dialogue to insure our safety' was to be disingenuous on our part," Salmons said. "We thought that the UJC had room to give us a more appropriate sanction that wouldn't require us to go back on what we believe."
According to Salmons, the appeal was filed on May 15, and last Friday students received an e-mail informing them that the motion for an appeal was upheld.
Read More
Shots fired reported at 100 block of Harmon Street, no injuries reported
By Thomas Baxter | 3 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.
