In an honor trial in January, former University student Stephanie Garrison was found guilty of lying. The case was initiated by Gavin Reddick, vice chair for sanctions for the University Judiciary Committee, who accused her of lying about completing her UJC sanctions for an underage drinking incident that occurred in March 2005, during her third year.
Garrison appealed the verdict and was granted a new trial, which is scheduled to take place this Sunday and will be open to the public.
Garrison claims she encountered many problems both before and during the honor trial that resulted in what she calls an unfair guilty verdict and later served as the basis for an appeal.
"The handling of my case has led to a violation of my procedural and substantive due process rights," Garrison argued in an appeal brief after being found guilty in January.
Garrison says her problems started at the investigative panel, a stage in the honor process when investigators interview witnesses, collect evidence and gather any information pertinent to the case. Garrison argued in her appeal that the investigators did not conduct a "fully thorough and impartial investigation" because they did not grant her requests to interview two witnesses: the police officer with whom Garrison rode along on SafeRide and a VASAP representative whom Garrison said could explain the similarities and differences between the VASAP classes she took and the Choices classes the UJC sanctioned her to take.
"The discovery process of my investigation was incomplete and too scant to allow a reasonable person to make an informed and equitable decision," Garrison argued in her appeal.
Former Honor Committee Chair David Hobbs oversaw the Committee during Garrison's case. He declined to comment specifically, saying he could no longer remember the case accurately, but said, "I think we deal with every student fairly, and there was nothing in my term in Honor ... where I saw that a student was treated unfairly."
Current Honor Committee Chair Alison Tramba also declined to comment on Garrison's case specifically but agreed to talk generally about honor procedures. She said the role of the investigators is to collect all relevant facts.
"We do hope that the investigator will contact anyone that either the reporter or the student mentions just because it's our best source of information," Tramba said. "But, you know, occasionally that may not happen," Tramba said, adding that investigators can decide whether a recommended witness is relevant and should be contacted.
In addition, Garrison said Honor Committee members told her that then-College fourth-year Benjamin Sachs, her first choice for an honor counsel, could not represent her. In e-mails and discussions Honor officials cited a conflict of interest policy that prevented honor officers from working on a case in which they had a "significant prior relationship" with any of the parties involved.
Garrison disputes that finding, saying she had previously met Sachs only briefly, "like you would meet any of your friends' friends." Garrison said she had sought out Sachs because her boyfriend, who had worked with Sachs on the Honor Committee, said he was "the best counsel."
Accounts of the role of the conflict of interest policy in Garrison's case are conflicting. In a Nov. 18, 2005 e-mail, Stewart Ackerly, the Honor Committee vice chair for trials at the time, informed Sachs that Garrison had requested him as counsel and asked if he would be available on four potential trial dates. Garrison, however, claims she had already been told that Sachs could not represent her because of the conflict of interest policy.
Ackerly then wrote to Garrison that neither Sachs nor Matt Nicholson, her second choice, was available on those dates, so she had to decide between two other counselors. She ultimately chose Nikki Cowing, with whom Garrison said she had been friends since her first year.
"It became this huge deal because I knew Nikki much better than I knew Ben," Garrison said. "But then [Ackerly said] 'Ben's just not available anyway.' And it is my personal opinion that they just didn't want Ben on the case."
Garrison declined to comment further on why she believed that to be true.
Ackerly declined to comment directly on Garrison's case because he is "no longer officially involved."
"In general terms, every accused student has a fair trial, and that's our top priority every time," Ackerly said.
According to Tramba, the original conflict of interest policy was passed by the Honor Committee in November 2005. The policy was later revised this March with a language change that said students were "strongly advised" not to take on a counsel with whom they had a "significant prior relationship." Tramba said students "are not strictly prohibited from choosing their counsel" because the Honor constitution affords them that right.
Garrison later cited "ineffective counsel" as a component of her appeal.
In addition to the "incomplete" investigation and counsel "debacle," Garrison says in her appeal that she was denied the right to a pre-trial conference. According to the Honor by-laws, the purpose of the pre-trial conference is to identify witnesses to testify at trial, determine the scope of the evidence and take any other measures to ensure a fair trial.
Garrison said her pre-trial conference, after several postponements in the weeks before the trial, was finally held 45 minutes before the trial itself started. The conference was scheduled for 9 a.m. but did not start until 9:15a.m. because several participants were late, Garrison said. The trial was scheduled to begin at 10 a.m.
"The lack of an adequate pre-trial conference resulted in the inability to properly prepare opening and closing statements, questioning, or even to ensure key witnesses would be at the hearing to testify on my behalf or rebut the testimony of others," Garrison argued in her appeal.
Tramba said pre-trial conferences are generally held a week or at least a few days in advance.
"Sometimes, though, availability of any of the parties, whether it's the counsel members or even the student, means that pre-trial is held a day before the trial," she said.
Tramba added that holding pre-trial conferences the day of the trial is "not our standard practice."
Tramba also said the Committee expects "great professionalism."
"Of course we would expect everyone who is involved to arrive promptly," she said. "That being said, we would not proceed with anything, including the trial, if we didn't think there was timely preparation."
Garrison said she encountered yet another obstacle the day of the trial when she discovered that she knew three of the 12 students on the jury--one of whom was her roommate. Garrison said she had requested the list of jurors the day before the trial but did not see it until 8:30 that morning. She notified her counsel and decided to dismiss those three jurors.
Garrison says this incident with the jurors indicates that her case "was not given the absolute, utmost scrutiny, taken professionally, taken seriously, even though this is an honor trial which has a single sanction" of expulsion for an honor offense.
In terms of the screening process, Tramba said potential jurors are asked a series of questions that could indicate any biases, such as an opposition to the single sanction, which could prevent them from making an impartial decision. They are also provided with a list of names of "well-known" students, such as athletes and student leaders, as well as the names of several accused students and are asked to circle any names they recognize and identify their relationship with those people.
Tramba said occasionally such issues are not resolved until the day of the trial.
The three jurors Garrison dismissed were not replaced, and the trial proceeded with nine jurors.
Garrison claims her rights were further violated during the actual trial because she did not have the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses, such as SafeRide coordinator Quenton Trice, who were not present and had statements made to investigators placed in the record.
"Since I was denied my constitutionally protected right to cross-examine a witness whose testimony is being used against me at trial, a multitude of information was admitted without proper foundation and/or explanation," she argued in her appeal.
Tramba said the Committee tries to make sure all witnesses are available at trial either in person or by phone, if necessary.
"It's something we definitely try and avoid," Tramba said of witnesses being absent at trial. "If there's a situation where a witness is not available, that can potentially violate a student's right, violate fundamental fairness because a student has a right to cross-examine witnesses."
Garrison ultimately was found guilty of lying about completing her UJC sanctions. Shortly after her trial, Garrison filed an expedited appeal that enabled her to continue taking classes while her appeal was being reviewed.
Tomorrow: Garrison's appeal.
Read More
The ‘Batten Curve’ — what’s the big deal?
By Bennett Galper and Nina Broderick | YesterdayBatten students are also involved in conversations about potential policy changes, with some taking an active role in advocacy efforts.
UJC sees “major influx” of cases with 38 adjudicated so far this term
By Ford McCracken | YesterdayAlongside an increase in cases, the Committee saw increased interest during recruitment
Shots fired reported on 800 block of Hardy Drive
By Thomas Baxter | 3 days agoLongo said to avoid the area for the time being.
