TO THE EDITOR:
I would first like to point out several factual errors and misconceptions about the Student Judicial System found in Brandon Briscoe's Oct. 2 Viewpoints column titled "Students Victimized by Honor Courts Failings."
Mr. Briscoe complains of my lack of neutrality at the open hearing of computer science students Mike Trinh and Brianne Roth, saying that I am "responsible for both prosecuting and defending students." Mr. Briscoe is mistaken about the role of the student attorney general.
To quote my responsibilities listed in the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance, "The Student Attorney General shall receive all complaints, investigate all complaints, formulate charges, prosecute charges, inform defendants of their rights, and provide defense counsel upon request." I would be failing in my role as the student attorney general were I not aiding the case of the investigation (prosecution). I am the individual who charged these students. The associate student attorney general assigned to the case supervises the defense of all accused students.
Mr. Briscoe also insinuates that in my initial meeting with students I secretly gather incriminating evidence and deviously manipulate confessions from them. This is an outright lie. Before each student opens his or her mouth in my office, I have them read and sign a document titled the "Acknowledgment of Rights Form," which states "all statements made (to the Student Attorney General) may be used in court" and that the accused student has the "right to refuse to give answers which might tend in any way to prove him or her guilty of the charge." I have Mike Trinh's and Brianne Roth's forms still in my office, if Mr. Briscoe would like to come and view them.
Mr. Briscoe also states that the investigator, Brad Newcomb, and myself were the only individuals who knew the facts and evidence of the related cases. This statement is also false. The defense counsels Ruwani Opatha and Adrienne Bryant both were aware of and had access to all of the above information.
