Jason Smith will soon submit an expedited appeal to the Honor Committee. In trying Smith the Committee followed all of its procedures and bylaws correctly, however the fairness of Smith’s trial may have been compromised by the inclusion of hearsay evidence. The Committee should reevaluate its bylaws concerning the admission of hearsay evidence so that hearsay is only admitted to a trial when there is no way to present the information through a first-hand account.
According to section G of the Committee’s bylaws, “Hearsay evidence may be admitted at the discretion of the Trial Chair, Trial Observer and Pre-Trial Coordinator.” Committee Chair David Truetzel said no blanket motion for the allowance of hearsay testimony is ever granted. Instead, if hearsay is present in the investigation log given to the Pre-Trial Panel for review, a decision is then made whether to allow the hearsay testimony. The bylaws further state, “Except as provided below, all relevant evidence necessary to a fair and thorough adjudication should be admitted at trial.” The following portion lists the exceptions to the policy of admitting all relevant evidence. Hearsay is dealt with separately, however, because it is not an exception nor is it always admitted.
Truetzel said as a general rule, all relevant evidence is admitted to a trial, but generally hearsay is admitted only when it can be verified. If testimony is verifiable by a first-hand witness, that would seem to be the occasion when hearsay is unnecessary to include all the relevant evidence at trial. Although it is understandable the Committee might not want to admit hearsay evidence that could not be verified, it does not make sense to admit hearsay evidence when a valid alternative is available.
At Smith’s open honor trial, Mary Siegel was allowed to give testimony about conversations between Smith and Michelle Fox at which Siegel was not present. This evidence was hearsay and approved for admission at trial. Fox was also a witness at the trial and fully able to give testimony about the conversations between herself and Smith. Because in this instance there was a valid alternative to the admission of Siegel’s hearsay testimony, Siegel’s testimony should not have been presented at the trial.
Truetzel said the purpose of the Pre-Trial Panel is to ensure the fairness of the trial. If that is the case, the admission of hearsay should not be left solely to the discretion of the Trial Chair, Trial Observer and Pre-Trial Coordinator without guidance. Instead, the Committee should consider a policy under which hearsay evidence would not be admitted when a first-hand account is available.
The Committee did not violate any of its procedures or bylaws in trying Smith, but that does not mean it provided an entirely fair trial. In the interest of having the fairest proceedings possible, the Committee should reevaluate its bylaws regarding hearsay.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | April 15, 2024Amid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
