Judicial board stages mock trial

Author: Chris Knapp

In an effort to educate the College community about Middlebury's judicial system, the Judicial Board hosted a mock hearing of a plagiarism case in the Redfield Proctor Room on Tuesday night.

"In a real hearing, all deliberations are confidential," wrote Associate Dean of the College Marichal Gentry in a campus-wide e-mail inviting students to attend. "This mock hearing will give [students] a chance to hear how the student members deliberate their findings."

Student members of the Judicial Board arrived half an hour before the mock hearing to learn the details of the case, about which, as in a real hearing, they knew nothing before arriving. Several student members of the Academic Judicial Board (AJB) and the Community Judicial Board (CJB) filled the roles of the defendant, the accusing professor, and two witnesses, while students serving on the AJB heard a case in which a student had evidently plagiarized a classmate's paper. Katie Kern '06, the student co-chair of the CJB, stood in as a professor bringing charges against Alex Garlick '08 for allegedly taking ideas and entire phrases from a paper written by Maddie Terry '08.

The hearing proceeded according to the judicial system's protocol. William Motley '06, student co-chair of the AJB, reminded participants that the hearing would be recorded, and that all participants in the hearing - except the defendant - were committed to confidentiality. He stressed that the College's judicial system was a private entity, and that its structure and philosophy were not strictly comparable to a court of law. Each member announced individually his or her ability to be fair and impartial, and Garlick was given an opportunity to challenge the presence of any Board member he felt was not fit to hear his case.

Motley then read the charges, citing the section of the College Handbook dealing with plagiarism, and the hearing began. Board members heard testimonies from both Garlick and Kern, as well as from two witnesses, and questioned all parties extensively before they deliberated over the evidence presented. On the basis of a preponderance of evidence, they found Garlick guilty and subject to suspension.

While the mock hearing adhered as closely as possible to the standards that would be applied in an actual hearing, it ran for only an hour. "I've never sat on a hearing that lasted less than two hours," said Kern, who has served on the CJB for three years. "Most take between three and four hours, and I've had some go as long as nine."

"There was only so much fictional information we could draw on before we'd be running in circles," Motley said. Hearing an actual case, he explained, the Board would collect much more information than it had been able to create. "There's no way to replicate the mood of a real case," he said. "The level of questioning is much more intense. It's a draining experience."

The mock hearing was especially relevant after the defendants in two hearings last year made their cases the center of public controversy. In the fall, Samantha Rivera was found guilty of plagiarism, and submitted an opinion piece to The Middlebury Campus that decried the judicial system as inadequate and unjust. Then, in the spring, the public eye was again turned toward the judicial system when O'Neil Walker was found guilty of intrusion into the rooms of several students. Walker appealed his case to the appeals board, which upheld the Community Judicial Board's decision. The case aroused interest outside the Middlebury community when Walker brought charges of discrimination against the College. In an article printed in the Village Voice, Walker's attorney called the system a "kangaroo court," and criticized the practice of conducting a closed hearing.

At the mock hearing on Tuesday, Motley pointed out that students being heard by any of the judicial boards are given the option of an open hearing.

Gentry stands confidently behind the judicial system he helped to create seven years ago. "The system is transparent," Gentry told The Middlebury Campus. "There's a difference between transparency and confidentiality. The entire structure of the system," he continued, "is explained in detail on Middlebury's Web site, for anyone to see, and members of the community are invited twice a year to mock hearings, so anyone can see firsthand how the judicial boards function."

Gentry and Motley were both satisfied with Tuesday's proceedings. "The mock hearing had a few goals," Motley said. "We wanted to demonstrate the basic procedural sequence we go through with every case we hear, and we wanted to demonstrate how we address defendants, and how we go about collecting evidence."

"Members of the judicial board are very extensively trained year-round," Gentry explained. "This mock hearing also serves as part of their training. Part of our philosophy is that we're always improving, and what you saw here tonight was part of that."

Gentry noted that there would be another mock hearing in the spring, probably of a conduct-related case, before the Community Council begins accepting applications for the 2006-2007 judicial boards.