Following the guilty verdict handed down by an honor jury Jan. 22, Stephanie Garrison had two weeks to file her intent to appeal if she wished to stay in classes for her final semester at the University.
Garrison was found guilty of lying to the University Judiciary Committee about completing several sanctions stemming from an underage drinking incident in March 2005.
According to Honor Chair Alison Tramba, dismissed students have the option of filing an expedited appeal which allows a student to remain in classes following a guilty verdict, provided they file intent to appeal by the Wednesday following the trial. The student then has two weeks to file an appeal brief.
Garrison said she spent the first few days of that period working on her appeal brief with her original counsel, Nikki Cowing. Ben Sachs, an honor counsel who had been recommended to her, was also involved in drafting the brief.
Garrison originally requested Sachs as the counsel for her first trial but was told by then-Vice Chair for Trials Stewart Ackerly that Sachs was unavailable for the dates she had selected. Jan. 30, however, Garrison received an e-mail from Sachs saying he was no longer allowed to be involved in the case.
Ackerly told Sachs in an e-mail that Honor's conflict of interest policy prohibits a support officer from working on a case in which he or she has a "significant prior relationship" with the reporter, the accused or a witness in a case. The due date for Garrison's appeal brief was then extended to Feb. 13.
The conflict of interest policy was added to the Honor Committee's code of ethics in the fall of 2005. The policy defines conflict of interest as any Honor Committee member, advisor or counsel having "a competing interest which would make it difficult to fulfill his or her Honor Committee responsibilities fairly or, even lacking actual evidence of such competing interest, would create an appearance of impropriety and thereby undermine confidence in the Honor System."
After a meeting between Garrison, Ackerly, Sachs and Nicole Eramo, special assistant to the Honor Committee, Garrison was permitted to keep Sachs as her counsel after signing a conflict of interest waiver. Garrison was also granted an extension on her appeal until Feb. 17.
Garrison said she focused on two points in her Feb. 17 appeal: her inability to question witnesses and a "haphazardly" conducted investigation. Tramba declined to comment on what specific grounds Garrison's appeal was granted and said it is possible the committee rejected the two claims Garrison emphasized, among others.
When appeals are made on multiple grounds, such as Garrison's, "the Executive Committee considers those appeals that raise questions with regard to fundamental issues of fairness," Tramba said. "The appeals commission considers each of the grounds independently and will investigate each of those, and it is possible for an appeal to be granted on just one ground on which the entire brief was filed."
Garrison argued in her appeal that key witnesses were not present at the trial, specifically University Police Capt. and SafeRide coordinator Quenton Trice, who Garrison says could have clarified a scheduling problem that prevented her from completing her UJC sanctions by a specific deadline.
"I couldn't have them testify in front of a jury," Garrison said. "It's a fundamental right."
Garrison also claimed in her appeal that the investigators assigned to her case did not contact everyone she requested.
According to the Honor Committee bylaws, dismissed students may appeal based on good cause or new evidence. Good cause appeals deal with procedural issues "relating to the fundamental fairness and/or timeliness of the applicable proceedings."
Once an appeal is received by the Honor Committee, the Executive Committee reviews the brief and decides if the dismissed student raises a "substantial question" of the fairness or timeliness of the honor proceedings. The Committee must also decide if the issues raised in a dismissed student's appeal "more likely than not" affected the outcome of the Honor proceedings.
If the Executive Committee decides an appeal meets these criteria, it is forwarded to an appeal commission appointed by the vice chair for trials.
The appeal commission is comprised of three Committee members. This commission is given 14 days to decide whether to recommend granting relief. Relief may be granted in the form of a new trial, a new investigation panel or dismissing the charges altogether. A commission can be granted more time "as reasonably necessary for such process to be completed."
Garrison said she learned her appeal was going to be reviewed by an appeal commission March 1. According to Garrison, her next contact with the Committee was April 1, when Ackerly informed her that the appeal commission was hung and had decided to pass her appeal on to the newly elected Committee, which took office that day.
Three of the newly elected Committee members had to recuse themselves from the new appeal process: Tramba served on the original appeal commission, Vice Chair for Investigations Andrew Siegel is a personal friend of Garrison's and Vice Chair for Trials Jay Trickett originally served as the counsel for the community in the Jan. 22 trial.
Vice Chair for Community Relations A-J Aronstein was chosen to fulfill Trickett's role of appointing the appeal commission.
Garrison said she requested more time and filed an appeal addendum April 19 with more new evidence and good cause points, such as her claim that the pretrial was held 45 minutes before the trial itself. SafeRide coordinator Trice also wrote a letter explaining that confusion regarding SafeRide shifts can occur. Garrison said she was told the Committee needed a week to 10 days to make a decision.
May 5, Sachs informed Garrison she had been granted a new trial.
Tramba said the appeals process normally takes about three weeks.
"There can be exceptions," Tramba added, "especially when a student requests extensions."
Garrison said she wanted a trial during the summer, but many of the Committee members available for summer trials had prior involvement in the case. Gavin Reddick, the University Judiciary Committee vice chair for sanctions who reported the case, was out of the country for the summer.
"I got the earliest trial I could," Garrison said of her Sept. 10 trial.
Tomorrow: Living with honor charges.
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.
