University of Virginia Library

Honor Committee Establishes
Broader Grounds For Appeal

By Bill Fryer
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

In final action taken this week the
Honor Committee has instituted a further
appeal system for an accused student.

The changes in the "Blue Sheet" also
affect the nature of advice available to
the student during the actual trial.

Present Chairman of the Honor
Committee, Whitt Clement, reported that
ever since taking office last spring the
members of the Committee have realized
that an additional appeal has been
"needed for a long time."

There has been criticism in recent
years that the single appeal of a student
accused of an honor offense to the Honor
Committee would make the system legally
vulnerable. The new system of appeal will allow
a student who was found guilty by the "first"
Committee to appeal the decision, if he shows
"good cause," to a second Committee.

The first Committee will be composed of
the President and Vice-President of the school
of the accused in addition to an officer from
each of the nine other schools. If a student
appeals the original Committee's decision and is
found to have "good cause" by the second
Committee, he will be granted a trial de novo or
a new trial before different students.

The second committee will be composed of
other student school officers who did not serve
on the first Committee. At the present time,
however, no more than six presidents, including
the president of the school of the accused, will
serve on the first Committee.

"Good cause" will be the criteria used in
determining whether or not an appeal will be
granted. Two examples of "good cause" given
by the Committee include the "substantial new
evidence" ground already available, and a
showing that, given the evidence presented in
the original trial, there is no rational basis to
support a verdict of guilty.

When a student appeals the decision of the
first Committee, he will receive a hearing before
the second Committee to determine whether he
shows "good cause." If the second Committee
determines that he does, he will receive a new
trial before them.

In considering alternatives for a new appeal
system, the Committee felt that it was essential
that the system continue to be a pure student
operation. According to a spokesman for the
Committee, the new appeal system will insure
that the opinion of the present student
generation will not be lost, since an elected
representative from each of the schools will be
present on each of the Committees.

The Committee, in making these changes,
considered the many alternatives and consulted
many people outside the Committee, including
legal experts, according to Mr. Clement. By the
new appeal system, the Committee hoped to
"serve as an added guarantee of fairness to all
parties" said Mr. Clement.

The present presidents who serve on the
Committee did not see any difficulties arising
from the increased responsibilities of the
vice-presidents as the result of the new appeal
structure. Mr. Clement noted that the vice presidents
will necessarily become more involved
and more aware of trial procedures.

A member of the Committee told The
Cavalier Daily that "As a major procedural
modification which the Committee has been
working on for a substantial part of its term of
office, this feature, an opportunity to appeal
for "good cause," will be made available to all
students found guilty of honor violations
during that term of office."

In addition to these new features, the
Committee now allows the accused to have a
non-student sit at the counsel table during the
trial to advise. This non-student may not serve
as an oral advocate. The accused still will have
unrestricted choice of counsel from among the
10,000 students of the University.

If there is a difference of opinion between
the student counselor and the non-student, who
could be an attorney, the opinion of the
student counselor shall be controlling, subject
to the wishes of the accused.

A spokesman for the Committee said, "We
have never sought to single out practicing
attorneys and bar them from our trials merely
because of their profession, just as we would
not attempt to bar practicing doctors, architects
or businessmen solely for that reason.

"What is required under our System is that
oral advocates for the accused in our trials be
those students regularly enrolled in the
University of Virginia in Charlottesville who are
themselves bound by the Honor System."

If a student has any question concerning the
new features of the system, he should contact
his representative on the Committee.