|
|
 |
-
- Initial Report.
A member of the University
community who observes what he or she believes to be a violation
of the Honor Code shall promptly submit a short, written report
to the applicable Student Attorney General in which he or she
identifies the student or students believed to be responsible
and describes relevant facts in support of the allegations, including
a description of the conduct in question and attendant circumstances.
A faculty member who suspects that a student has committed a
violation of the Honor Code relating to academic dishonesty may
also recommend an appropriate sanction as part of the report
of the alleged conduct or by communicating his or her views to
the relevant Student Attorney General. If the faculty member
chooses to do so, he or she may notify the student of the faculty
member’s intention to report the suspected violation, and give
the student the opportunity to provide additional information
if the student chooses to do so after the student reviews his
or her rights under the Instrument. Private action by a faculty
member as a sanction for academic dishonesty is inconsistent
with faculty policy as promulgated by Faculty Council and embodied
in Appendix B and may not be used in lieu of or in addition to
a report of the incident.
- Notice, Review, and Investigation.
The applicable
Student Attorney General shall review and investigate reports
of Honor Code violations that have been referred by members of
the University community or by police authorities or citizens
outside the University community because of the possible implications
of the conduct in question for protection of the University’s
interests. Anonymous charges shall not be permitted. The appropriate
Student Attorney General or Judicial Program Officer shall notify
the accused student promptly once a report has been received.
-
- Charge and Notice to Appear.
The applicable
Student Attorney General or his or her designee shall review
the report of alleged misconduct and conduct a preliminary investigation
prior to determining whether charges under the Honor Code should
be filed. Under ordinary circumstances, charge determinations
should be made within 30 days, provided that an extension of
up to an additional 30 days may be permitted for good cause as
determined by the applicable Student Attorney General or for
up to an additional 60 days under exceptional circumstances with
the concurrence of the Judicial Programs Officer. If the applicable
Student Attorney General determines that there is a reasonable
basis for concluding that a student has violated the Honor Code,
he or she shall notify the accused student or students in writing
by certified mail of the Student Attorney General’s intention
to commence an action under the Instrument of Student Judicial
Governance, the charges to be pursued, the underlying allegations
and factual basis for the charges, possible sanctions, and the
student’s procedural rights. In all instances in which charged
offenses could result in expulsion, the notice shall include
this possibility and must specify that expulsion precludes matriculation
at any UNC constituent institution. The notice shall also advise
the accused student of the need to schedule a preliminary conference,
and may specify the date and time of the anticipated hearing
on the charges, so long as the date specified is at least 10
calendar days from the date on which the date written notice
is received by the accused student. The applicable Student Attorney
General shall also advise the Judicial Programs Officer of the
proposed action by copy of the communication notifying the student.
- Preliminary Conference and Hearing Date.
A
preliminary conference shall be scheduled between the Student
Attorney General or his or her designee and the accused student
at least 10 calendar days before an anticipated hearing date
on the charges. At the conference, the Student Attorney General
or his or her representative shall inform the accused student
in detail of the charges against him or her, the character of
the evidence, alternatives available in responding to the charge
including acknowledgement of responsibility and implications,
possible sanctions, and procedural rights. In the Student Attorney
General’s discretion, if the requirements set forth in section
II.C of Appendix C are met, he or she may also advise the accused
student of the possibility of proceeding through an expediting
hearing process as described in section VI of Appendix C rather
than under the full hearing process described in section V of
Appendix C. If a hearing date is not specified in the notice
of the charge, written notice of the hearing date must be provided
to the accused student at the preliminary conference or sent
to the student to be received not less than five calendar days
before the proceeding is scheduled for hearing, unless the accused
student agrees to an earlier hearing date, or either the accused
student or the designated Student Attorney General requests a
reasonable extension of time to prepare for the hearing and mutually
agree to the requested extension or the extension is approved
by the Judicial Programs Officer in the event of dispute.
- Recommendation and Referral for Expedited Sanctioning
in Instances in Which Student Accepts Responsibility.
The
Student Attorney General may, in his or her discretion, and
in consultation with the Judicial Programs Officer, determine
that a matter should be referred to an Expedited Hearing Panel
of the Honor Court as described in section VI of Appendix C
rather than for a full hearing as described in section V of
Appendix C provided that all of the following conditions apply:
(a) the accused student admits fault and takes responsibility
in writing for the conduct and related offense; (b) the evidence
is sufficiently clear so that the student’s guilt for the offense
to be charged has been demonstrated without additional review
under section V of Appendix C; (c) the accused student agrees
in writing to proceed before an Expedited Hearing Panel after
receiving pertinent information about his or her rights under
this Instrument; and (d) the Student Attorney General submits
a written recommendation and referral that addresses each of
the conditions set forth above.
- Relation to Action in State or Federal Courts.
In
instances when action is either pending or completed against
a student in a state or federal court and when the University's
interests are at issue, the Student Attorney General and the
Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs will make a determination
as to whether the protection of the University's interests requires
action by the University. If the Student Attorney General and
the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs cannot agree on the determination,
the issue shall be decided by the Committee on Student Conduct.
- A hearing
on charges that a student or students have violated the Honor Code
shall be held by the court with the authority granted under the Instrument
of Student Judicial Governance over the matter or a University Hearings
Board as provided below.
- Undergraduate Honor Court.
The Undergraduate Honor
Court shall have authority to hear all matters involving violations
of the Honor Code except those within the authority of the Graduate
or Professional School Courts, those cases reserved to the University
Hearings Board in section III.E of Appendix C, and those cases reserved
for the Summer School Court under section III.B of Appendix C.
- Summer School Court.
The Summer School Court shall
have authority to hear all matters that fall within the authority
of the Undergraduate Honor Court during the summer session including
any matter pending before the Undergraduate Honor Court at the end
of the spring semester and violations occurring during the summer
session.
- Graduate School Court.
The Graduate School Court
shall have authority to hear all matters concerning alleged violations
of the Honor Code by students who are enrolled in a degree program
in the University’s Graduate School or any other course in post-baccalaureate
study, except as specified in section III.D of Appendix C (relating
to professional school courts) or section III.E of Appendix C (relating
to cases referred to the University Hearings Board).
- Professional School Courts.
The Professional School
Courts shall have authority to hear all matters concerning alleged
violations of the Honor Code by students who are enrolled in the
Schools of Dentistry, Law, Medicine, and Pharmacy as candidates for
a degree of DDS, JD, MD, or Pharm.D, except as specified in section
III.E of Appendix C (relating to cases referred to the University
Hearings Board).
- University Hearing Board.
The University Hearings
Board shall have authority to hear in the following cases:
- Cases otherwise within the authority of the student courts
when the appropriate Student Attorney General and the Vice
Chancellor for Student Affairs determine that circumstances
make such authority inappropriate as a result of verifiable
medical or psychological complications; the inability of the
student court to provide a speedy hearing; or other considerations
that make the case inappropriate for hearing and decision by
a student court.
- Cases in which an accused student, with the concurrence of
the appropriate Student Attorney General, requests in writing
a University Hearings Board because of significant disparities
in age of the accused student and members of the student court,
or significant inconvenience in scheduling an appearance before
the student court due to geographic, family, occupational,
or other circumstances.
- Cases in which an accused student, with the concurrence of
the appropriate Student Attorney General, requests in writing
a University Hearings Board because of significant disparities
in age of the accused student and members of the student court,
or significant inconvenience in scheduling an appearance before
the student court due to geographic, family, occupational,
or other circumstances.
- Cases involving alleged violations of the Honor Code that
would fall within the authority of any student court has ceased
to exist, or cannot or does not exercise its authority to hear
the matter.
- Cases pending before any student court other than the Undergraduate
Court at the end of the spring semester and all violations
of the Honor Code during Summer School within the authority
of courts other than the Summer School Court.
-
- General Protections.
Students charged with
Honor Code violations and complainants alleging such violations
shall be afforded the detailed procedural rights set forth in
Section IV of the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance.
- Evidence in Cases Involving Sexual Invasion. (Section
II.C.1.b.ii of the Instrument)
- Limited Admissibility.
In cases involving offenses under
section II.C.1.b.ii of the Instrument of Student Judicial
Governance the following rules of evidence will apply with
regard to “sexual behavior” including sexual activity of
the complainant other than the sexual act on which the
charge is based. Evidence of the sexual behavior of the
complainant of a sexual assault, when offered by the student
charged, is inadmissible in the hearing on the charge unless
such behavior was between the complainant and the accused,
is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered
for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged
were not committed by the accused, is evidence of an occurrence
or occurrences of sexual behavior so distinctive and so
closely resembling the accused student's version of the
alleged encounter with the complainant as to tend to prove
that the complainant consented to the act or acts charged,
or is evidence of sexual behavior offered as the basis
of expert psychological or psychiatric opinion that the
complainant fantasized or invented the act or acts charged.
Sexual behavior otherwise admissible under this section
may only be proved by evidence of specific acts and may
not be proved by reputation or opinion. Until a determination
is made under this section that specific evidence is admissible,
no reference to the complainant’s alleged behavior shall
be made in the presence of the court and no evidence of
this behavior shall be introduced at any time during the
hearing.
- Determination of Admissibility.
Prior to the time the
case is set for hearing, the person seeking to introduce
such evidence shall apply to the Judicial Programs Officer
for a determination of its admissibility. The Judicial
Programs Officer shall convene a three-person University
Hearings Board panel composed of one faculty member, one
student from the court having authority to hear the matter,
and one administrator designated by the Vice Chancellor
for Student Affairs, to consider evidence and arguments
of the student charged and the investigator acting on behalf
of the appropriate Student Attorney General. Procedures
shall apply and a record of the hearing shall be made in
accordance with section V.B – V.F of Appendix C. The person
seeking to introduce the evidence must establish the basis
for its admissibility. The University Hearings Board panel
shall determine the admissibility of the evidence and state
in writing its findings, setting out the specific purpose
for which the evidence is admissible and the reasons supporting
the finding. Its determination on the admissibility of
the evidence shall be conclusive and no separate appeal
of the admissibility finding shall be allowed. The court
in the full proceeding on the charge of sexual invasion
must, however, determine the probative value and weight
of the evidence, including the credibility of witnesses,
as in the case of any other evidence. A finding of admissibility
of such evidence may be reviewed only in an appeal of a
determination of court rendering a final judgment on the
merits of the charge of sexual invasion under section II.C.1.b.ii
of the Instrument.
- Except
in instances in which the Student Attorney General has recommended
and the accused student has agreed in writing to proceed under section
VI of Appendix C, the following requirements shall apply:
- Composition of Hearing Panels.
- Student Court panels.
Hearing panels of the Undergraduate
Court shall be composed of a presiding officer selected
by random drawing from a pool composed of the chair and
vice chairs of the pertinent court, and four additional
members selected by random drawing from a pool composed
of the remaining members of the pertinent court. Hearing
panels of the graduate school and professional school
courts shall be determined according to procedures established
pursuant to the governance systems established by these
schools.
- University Hearings Board panels exercising original
authority under section III.E of Appendix C.
University
Hearings Board panels exercising original jurisdiction
under section III.E of Appendix C shall be composed of
two faculty members selected from among those serving
on the Faculty Hearings Board Panel, one designee of
the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs (serving as Chair),
and two students designated by the chair of the appropriate
student court having authority with regard to matter
being heard.
- Presiding officer.
The presiding officer
shall direct and control the proceedings before the court or
University Hearings Board. The presiding officer shall be responsible
for determining whether all members of the hearing panel are
qualified to sit on the matter and have disclosed any information
that may bear on their ability to proceed in a fair and impartial
manner. The presiding officer shall also be responsible for
maintaining proper decorum, including the conduct of parties
and counsel toward witnesses. Subject to review by the hearing
panel, the presiding officer shall have the power to limit
the introduction of evidence, testimony of witnesses, and argument
of the parties to matters that are relevant and significant.
The presiding officer shall also be responsible for announcing
the decision of the hearing panel with regard to the guilt
of the charged student and the sanctions to be imposed, and
for promptly submitting a written summary of the hearing panel’s
findings, conclusions, ruling, and rationale.
- Responsibilities of members of hearing panel.
The
members of the hearing panel shall be responsible for hearing
and reviewing the charges and evidence in a fair and impartial
manner. In any instance in which a member of the hearing panel
is aware of matters that may affect his or her ability to hear
a matter fairly and impartially, he or she shall make prompt
disclosure of such information and request that the remaining
members of the hearing panel determine whether he or she should
proceed after an opportunity is provided to the charged student
and the other members of the panel to ask questions.
- Participation in hearing.
All hearings pursuant
to this Instrument shall be closed, unless the charged student,
in cases other than those involving sexual invasion under section
II.C.1.b.ii of the Instrument, requests in writing that the
hearing be open. The complainant in instances in which the
charged student is accused of an offense involving injury to
persons under section II.C.1 of the Instrument shall have the
right to be present and to be accompanied by a support person
(relative, friend or individual providing counsel other than
legal counsel) during the original hearing, any evidentiary
proceeding, or any appeal, provided, however, that the support
person who may not participate in the hearing itself. In cases
involving undergraduate students, the member of the Student
Attorney General's staff investigating the case and the charged
student’s counsel must be undergraduate students currently
enrolled at UNC Chapel Hill. In cases involving graduate or
professional students, it is preferred, but not required, that
the investigator and defense counsel be graduate or professional
students under enrolled in the same school or program as the
accused student, otherwise the investigator or defense counsel
must still be a student currently enrolled at UNC Chapel Hill.
In any court, neither a licensed attorney nor a person who
has passed a state bar examination may serve as the investigator
or the defense counsel or be present during the proceedings
in support of either.
- Respect for impartiality.
During the pendancy
of a proceeding or related deliberations, no interested party
shall approach any member of the hearing panel other than at
the panel’s request. Any attempt to approach any member
of the hearing panel inappropriately shall itself constitute
a violation under this Instrument.
- Conduct of the hearing.
The hearing shall
proceed as follows:
- Recording of Proceedings and Security of Records.
The
presiding officer shall inform all participants in a
hearing that a record shall be maintained of the proceedings,
and shall designate a member of the hearing panel to
be responsible for recording all oral statements made
at the hearing, receiving all written evidence accepted
by the hearing panel, and taking such other clerical
action as directed by the presiding officer. The presiding
officer and the Judicial Programs Officer shall be responsible
for the security of all records of the proceedings.
- Student Response to Charge.
The presiding officer shall
state the charge in the presence of the accused student
and other members of the hearing panel, and the student
charged may accept responsibility; plead not guilty;
move to terminate the hearing on grounds that the court
or hearing panel lacks the authority to hear the case;
or move to postpone the hearing on grounds that he or
she has not received a written Notice to Appear, has
not been fully informed of the charge and is unable to
make an adequate defense, or has not been granted a properly
conducted preliminary conference. The hearing panel shall
be responsible for determining whether to grant a charged
student’s motion to terminate or postpone the hearing.
If a defendant, without justification, does not appear
for or remain at the hearing, the hearing panel may proceed
in the defendant's absence.
- Presentation of Charges.
The appropriate Student Attorney
General or his or her representative shall state the
charges against the charged student, and present witnesses
and written evidence or testimony in support of the charges,
subject to the right of the charged student or his or
her counsel to refute the case.
- Access to Evidence and Witnesses.
Both the representative
of the appropriate Student Attorney General and the defense
shall have the power to compel the appearance of persons
from the University community who can provide substantial,
relevant evidence or who can testify to the character
of those involved in the matter charged. Failure of a
student to respond to such a Notice to Appear will subject
him or her to action under the Instrument unless the
absence is satisfactorily justified, in writing, to the
Student Attorney General who issued the Notice to Appear.
In order to assure fairness and procedural due process,
faculty members and other University employees who possess
substantial, relevant evidence in a given case are expected
to honor any request to appear issued by a hearing panel
acting with authority under the Instrument.
- Questioning of Witnesses.
All witnesses and parties
may be questioned by the Student Attorney General or
his or her representative, the accused student and his
or her counsel, members of the hearing panel, and the
complainant, except in instances in which the individual
being question asserts the right against self-incrimination.
- Deliberations and Judgment.
Immediately
upon conclusion of the initial phase of the hearing, the hearing
panel shall deliberate in private and determine whether the
accused student or students have been shown beyond a reasonable
doubt to have violated the Honor Code as charged, and determine
the sanctions to be imposed. In extraordinary circumstances,
the presiding officer may postpone deliberation or sanctioning
and reschedule the hearing to the next available date.
- Finding of Guilt.
For purposes of the Instrument
of Student Judicial Governance, “beyond a reasonable
doubt” means a doubt that is based upon reason and
common sense after careful and impartial consideration
of all evidence, and not a mere “shadow of a doubt” or
any conceivable doubt. The hearing panel’s decision
shall rest solely on the evidence presented in the
hearing, and shall be reached following deliberation
by use of a secret ballot. The hearing panel may reach
one of the following judgments: (a) not guilty, (b)
guilty, or (c) guilty of a portion of the charges stated.
In order to find a student guilty, at least 3 of the
5 members must vote guilty. In the event that the Court
(with the accused student’s consent) is proceeding
with fewer than five members, at least 3 of the members
present must vote guilty in order to find a student
guilty.
- Error in Initial Charge.
The hearing panel may also
determine that an error has been made in the charge
against the student, and may correct the error by rewriting
the charge to conform to the appropriate charge, in
which case the hearing panel shall afford the accused
student with the option of having the existing panel
deliberate upon the new charge or requesting a new
hearing.
- Determination of Sanctions.
In instances in which
the hearing panel determines that the accused student
is guilty or guilty in part, it shall determine the
sanctions to be applied, as provided in section III
of the Instrument.
- Announcement and Transmittal of Judgment.
After the
hearing panel reaches its judgment, the presiding officer
shall announce the judgment and sanctions in the presence
of the accused student. The presiding officer shall
submit a written summary of the hearing panel’s conclusions,
rationale, verdict, sanctions, and applicable appeal
rights to the accused student and the Judicial Programs
Officer as soon as practicable but in no event more
than 10 days from the date on which the judgment is
announced.
-
- Undergraduate Court Expedited Hearing Panels.
- Composition.
The Chair of the Undergraduate Court shall
as necessary designate expedited hearing panels to hear
matters referred to the Court by the Undergraduate Attorney
General as provided in section II.C. of Appendix C. Expedited
hearing panels shall be composed of three members of the
Undergraduate Honor Court, including the Chair or a designated
Vice Chair who shall serve as presiding officer, and two
additional members selected for their experience and competence
in dealing with the assignment of sanctions.
- Functions and Procedures.
An expedited hearing panel
shall be responsible for determining the appropriate sanctions
to be imposed in instances in which a student has agreed
to take responsibility for the conduct giving rise to a
charge under the Honor Code and the matter has been referred
by the student attorney general as one in which requisite
conditions specified in section II.C of appendix C have
been satisfied and sanctions may be immediately imposed.
The accused student may be assisted by counsel as provided
in section IV.A.3 of the Instrument, and the Student Attorney
General may present relevant evidence and recommendations
regarding the appropriate sanctions through a designated
staff investigator or written materials according to his
or her discretion. The complainant shall also be entitled
to present comments regarding the appropriate sanctions
in person or in writing for consideration by the panel,
as provided in section IV.B.3 of the Instrument. The expediting
hearing panel shall carefully consider the evidence of
the student’s conduct and recommended sanctions, allow
the accused student to present comments, discuss with the
accused student the implications of his or her conduct
for the University community, and impose appropriate sanctions
from among those available under the Instrument, including
at least the minimum sanction provided in Section III of
the Instrument. The chair of the expedited hearing panel
shall maintain a record of the proceedings as provided
in section V.F.1, and shall provide a rationale for the
panel’s decision as promptly as practicable as provided
in section V.G.4 of Appendix C.
- Appeals.
A student who has accepted responsibility and
agreed in writing to proceed before an expedited hearing
panel may appeal only on grounds of severity of sanctions
or violation of basic rights, as provided in section VII.A.3.b-c
of Appendix C.
- Expedited Hearing Panels in Graduate and Professional
School Courts.
Expedited hearing procedures for purposes
of determining sanctions may be adopted by the graduate and
professional school courts in accordance with the governance
systems in effect.
-
- Appeals from Original Proceedings.
- Authority of University Hearings Board and Composition
of Appellate Panel.
The University Hearings Board shall
have the authority to hear appeals in cases originally
considered by the Undergraduate Court (including an expedited
hearing panel), Summer School Honor Court, Graduate School
Court, or Courts of the Professional Schools. The University
Hearings Board shall also have appellate jurisdiction over
cases within its authority to hear original matters as
specified in section III.E of Appendix C, provided that
no individual who has served on the original hearing panel
shall serve as part of the appellate panel. For purposes
of exercising its appellate authority, an appellate panel
shall be constituted including two faculty members selected
from among those serving on the Faculty Hearings Board
Panel, one designee of the Vice Chancellor for Student
Affairs, and two students designated by the Chair of the
appropriate student court having original authority who
have not been involved in prior proceedings in the case.
A faculty member or administrator designated by the Vice
Chancellor shall serve as presiding officer.
- Petition and grounds for appeal.
- Right of Appeal. An accused
student who has been found guilty before a student
court or University Hearings Board with original
authority as provided in section V, or who has had
judgment and sanctions determined by an expedited
hearing panel as provided in section VI of Appendix
C may file a petition for appeal no later than five
business days (weekends and University holidays excepted)
from the announcement of judgment and sanctions as
provided in section V.G of Appendix C. Appeals shall
be heard as promptly as possible and, except under
unusual circumstances as determined by the Judicial
Programs Officer, shall be scheduled for hearing
no later than 30 calendar days from the date the
initial judgment is announced.
- Grounds for Appeal.
An appeal
of a judgment rendered under section V may be based
on the insufficiency of evidence, severity of sanctions,
or violation of basic rights provided in section
IV.A of the Instrument and on no other grounds. An
appeal of a judgment rendered under section VI may
be based upon severity of sanctions, or violation
of basic rights provided in section IV.A of the Instrument
and on no other grounds.
- Appeal Petition.
An appeal petition
shall be filed in a timely fashion as specified in
paragraph 2.a of this section, and shall consist
of a detailed written statement specifying the precise
grounds for appeal and indicating with precision
the supporting facts, and shall be signed by the
accused student (or, in an appeal by a student group,
by the group’s president or chief officer).
The Judicial Programs Officer will review the petition
to determine whether it is based upon one or more
of the grounds for appeal stated in this section
and provides a factual basis for the appeal. If the
Judicial Program Officer determines that the petition
states a permissible ground and sufficient factual
basis for appeal, he or she shall refer the matter
to a University Hearings Board appellate panel for
action. If the Judicial Program Officer determines
that the appeal petition does not state a permitted
ground or a sufficient factual basis for appeal,
he or she shall refer the petition for appeal to
a three-member Appellate Review Board composed of
a member of the Faculty Hearings Panel, an administrator
designated by the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs,
and a member of the appropriate student honor court
who has not been involved in consideration of the
case during the original proceeding before the student
court. The Appellate Review Board shall determine
whether the appeal petition states a permissible
ground and sufficient factual basis for appeal, and
shall refer the matter for review by a University
Hearings Board if requisite grounds and factual basis
are stated, or if not shall dismiss the appeal.
- Scope of review and disposition.
In deciding appeals
from the judgment of a student court of University Hearings
Board panel exercising original authority, the University
Hearings Board appellate panel shall review the record
made in the original hearing, including relevant portions
of the recording or transcript of the hearing proceedings,
except the deliberations of the court, and a copy of all
documents and other writings introduced in evidence at
the hearing. It shall apply the following scope of review
and dispose of petitions for appeal as specified below:
- Insufficiency of evidence. For purposes of evaluating
the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate panel
shall consider only the evidence contained in the
record made before the original court or hearing
panel, and shall sustain that court or panel’s
determination provided there is a reasonable basis
for a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
as defined in section V.G.1 of Appendix C, and if
not it shall dismiss the case.
- Severity of sanctions. For purposes of evaluating
the severity of the sanctions, the appellate panel
shall consider only the evidence contained in the
record made in the original court or hearing panel,
and shall sustain that court or panel’s determinations
provided there is a reasonable basis for the sanction
imposed, and if not shall impose a lesser sanction
as it determines to be appropriate.
- Violation of basic rights. For purposes of evaluating
whether the basic rights of the accused student specified
in section IV.A of the Instrument were violated,
the appellate panel shall consider the relevant evidence
contained in the record made in the original court
and any further testimony it deems pertinent by the
accused student, the appropriate Student Attorney
General (or his or her designee), the presiding officer
and members of the original hearing panel, and any
witness with knowledge of the alleged violation.
The appellate panel shall then determine whether,
by a preponderance of evidence, the court or hearing
panel having original authority, or the Office of
the Student Attorney General, violated the accused
student’s basic rights, and, if so, whether
the violation prejudiced the outcome of the student’s
original hearing so as to necessitate a remand for
a new hearing. If the alleged violation of basic
rights cannot be corrected through a remand of the
matter, the appellate panel shall dismiss the case.
- Appellate procedures.
The appellate panel shall review
the pertinent record made in the original court and no
other evidence except as specified in section VII.A.3.c
of Appendix C. The hearing on appeal shall be closed, except
to the extent provided in section V.D of Appendix C. Only
the accused student and his or her student counsel, the
appropriate Student Attorney General or his or her designee,
the complainant and his or her support person as specified
in section IV.B of the Instrument, and witnesses providing
specific testimony under section VII.A.3.c of Appendix
C shall be permitted to participate. In no case may a licensed
attorney or a person who has passed a state bar examination
assist or be present during the proceedings, except to
the extent specified in section IV.A.3 of the Instrument.
In the course of the proceedings, the presiding officer
shall permit members of the appellate panel to ask questions
as they deem appropriate, and shall permit the accused
student to concisely present the grounds for appeal, the
Student Attorney General or his or her designee to address
the merits of the appeal, and the accused student to offer
a concluding summation. Following the concluding summation,
the members of the appellate panel will deliberate in private,
reach a decision by majority vote using secret ballots,
and promptly announce their judgment. The presiding officer
shall as promptly as practicable provide the accused student,
the complainant, and the Judicial Programs Officer with
a written statement of the rationale for the decision.
- Petition for Further Review by the Chancellor from
Determinations of the University Hearings Board.
- Grounds for petition for further review.
A petition for
further review by the Chancellor of a decision by the University
Hearings Board shall be available on either of the following
grounds and no others:
- Denial of fundamental procedural rights under policies
of the Board of Trustees or Board of Governors, including
rights to due process and a fair hearing, the presumption
of innocence until found guilty, the right to know
the evidence and to face witnesses testifying against
the student, and the right to such advice and assistance
in the individual’s defense as permitted under this
Instrument; provided that an appeal on such grounds
must have been raised as a basis for appeal to the
University Hearings Board or stem from denial of
the specified rights with regard to the proceedings
of the University Hearings Board on appeal.
- Severity of sanction but only where the sanction
imposed is permanent suspension or expulsion and
not with regard to any other sanctions.
- Procedures
- Petition for review. An accused student who wishes
to petition for further review of a decision of the
University Hearings Board upholding a judgment under
the Honor Code may file a petition for review by
the Chancellor no later than five business days (weekends
and University holidays excepted) based on the grounds
stated in section VII.B.1 of Appendix C and no others.
A petition for review shall consist of a detailed
written statement specifying the precise grounds
for appeal and indicate with precision the supporting
facts, and shall be signed by the accused student
(or, in an appeal by a student group, by the group’s
president or chief officer). The Dean of Students
will consider the petition to determine whether it
is based upon the grounds for further review stated
in this section and provides a sufficient factual
basis for further review. If the Dean of Students
determines that the petition states a permissible
ground and sufficient factual basis for further review,
he or she shall refer the matter to the Chancellor
or his or her designee for action. If the Dean of
Students determines that the petition for review
does not state a permitted grounds or a sufficient
factual basis for further review, he or she shall
refer the petition to a three-member Appellate Review
Board composed of a member of the Faculty Hearings
Board Panel, an administrator designated by the Vice
Chancellor for Student Affairs, and a member of the
appropriate student honor court, none of whom has
been involved in consideration of the case during
the original proceeding or initial appeal. The Appellate
Review Board shall determine whether the petition
for review states a permissible ground and sufficient
factual basis for further review, and shall refer
the matter for review by the Chancellor or his or
her designee if requisite grounds and a factual basis
are stated or if not shall dismiss the petition for
review.
- Review process. In considering a petition for further
review, the Chancellor or his or her designee shall
consider the record made in the original court and
on appeal, except the deliberations of the hearing
and appellate panels, and copies of all documents
and other writings introduced in evidence. The accused
student shall be afforded an opportunity to present
the basis for the petition for review and respond
to questions, and a representative of the appropriate
Student Attorney General’s office shall be
provided an opportunity to respond. In instances
of petitions based on section VII.B.1.a of Appendix
C relating to violation of fundamental procedural
rights, the Chancellor or his or her designee shall
determine whether the preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that the accused student’s fundamental
procedural rights were violated so as to prejudice
the outcome of the original or appellate hearing
and if so shall remand for further proceedings or
dismiss the charge if the alleged violation cannot
be corrected through remand. In the event that the
petition for review is found to be without merit
under the stated standards, the accused student’s
finding of guilt and associated sanctions shall become
final and shall be implemented in accordance with
the terms of section III.E.1 of the Instrument. In
instances of petitions based on section VII.B.1.b
of Appendix C, the Chancellor or his or her designee
shall determine whether there is a reasonable basis
for the sanction imposed, and if not, shall impose
a lesser sanction as it determines to be appropriate.
- Relief based on newly discovered evidence. An accused
student or student group may file a detailed written
petition for a new hearing with the Judicial Program
Officer on the basis of newly discovered evidence,
provided that the evidence provides a reasonable
basis for concluding the outcome in the case might
have altered the outcome of the original hearing
and that the evidence was not known to the student
or group at the time of the original hearing or appeals
in the case. The Judicial Program Officer shall determine
whether the petition states a sufficient factual
basis for the claim, and if so shall transmit the
petition for consideration by the chair of the appropriate
student court, who may order a new hearing to be
conducted following the procedures set forth in this
Instrument, with different court members selected
by the court chair to ensure a fair hearing. If the
Judicial Program Officer determines that the petition
for a new hearing does not meet the requirements
stated in this section, he or she shall refer the
petition to an Appellate Review Board as provided
in section VII.A.2.c of Appendix C. If the Appellate
Review Board determines that the petition for a new
hearing satisfies the requirements set forth in this
section, it shall refer the petition for action by
the chair of the appropriate court, and if not it
shall dismiss the petition without grounds for further
appeal.
|
|
