Honor Case Reaches Record Level in History of Appeals

The appeal, which involves a female undergraduate student accused of academic cheating, already has made it through an original hearing and two appeals. This marks the first time a case has made it this far since the court was incorporated in 1974.

"I've never seen it get to this level," said Brad Newcomb, student attorney general. "It's a pretty standard case, but this is a somewhat unusual situation."

The appellate process for a student accused of an Honor Code violation is only partially laid out in the code, but in this case, the student began with her original hearing, in which she was convicted.

Newcomb said after that, the student took her case to the University Appeals Board, which is made up of two students, two faculty members and an administrator. This first level of appeal can be made on one of three grounds: insufficient evidence for a finding of guilt, a violation of basic rights to a fair trial or an unfairly severe sanction.

After losing that appeal, Newcomb said the student took her case before the chancellor. According to the student judicial instrument, an appeal to the chancellor can only be made on the grounds of a rights violation.

But Newcomb said appeals to the chancellor often include arguments that are not strictly based on rights violations.

"The chancellor has been a bit lenient on what is able to be discussed," he said.

"Given what I remember of that individual's case, it'll probably veer off into other areas (when it comes before the BOT)."

The next step is a closed hearing before the BOT. This hearing originally was scheduled for Sept. 26 but was postponed until Nov. 14.

Although the code does not specifically outline the step after the BOT, Newcomb said he thinks the next level would be to go to the Board of Governors.

"It would have to be a serious question of the way we run the judicial process or the way student discipline is handled to go all the way to the BOG," he said.

Newcomb said the student, her counsel and Judicial Programs Officer Dave Gilbert will all be present at the BOT hearing, although no one from the student attorney general's office will be present.

He said the student chose to use the Independent Defense Counsel to represent her in her first two appeals but that he is not sure who would be representing her at the BOT hearing. He said no one from the student attorney general's office would be assisting.

"She hasn't really sought counsel very much -- she's been doing a lot on her own," Newcomb said.

The student attorney general's office normally provides both prosecuting and defense attorneys.

Bill Hashemi, president and founder of the IDC, would not confirm or deny that his office had been involved with this case. But he said his organization, which was started last year to provide independent defense attorneys to students facing charges in the Honor Court, would help in an appeal at this level.

"We would present to the BOT arguments to support our appeal, and if there are issues that need to be cleared up, we would do that," he said. "If a student is involved in a case which reached the level of the BOT, that student could trust us, and we would be helpful."

Newcomb said he was distressed that his office had not been invited to defend the Honor Court's original verdict before the BOT.

"My office is pretty much out of the loop," he said. "My biggest concern would be having a defense counsel or a lawyer skew the facts, intentionally or unintentionally. That would concern me."

But Newcomb said he is glad Gilbert would be representing the University's interests. He said although the code does not specifically govern how the BOT hearing should be conducted, he expects it to be fair.

"The decision of the undergraduate court to find her guilty has already been upheld twice -- I don't believe the BOT would disregard that," he said.

"To say they play it by ear is pretty much correct, but they have the best interest of the students in mind."

The University Editor can be reached at udesk@unc.edu.