What does it mean?

What does it mean?

College Discipline

Michael Mello writes to the Editor defending Andy Hulcher. He believes that the Joint Council did not fairly penalize Andy for being a spectator while females were in his room because he did not invite them up there or have prior knowledge that they were coming over. He believes that Andy was unfairly punished.

Mello, Michael A.

Mello, Michael A. "What does it mean?" Mary Washington College Bullet, Michael A. Mello Papers, 1957 - 2008, Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington

HIST 298, University of Mary Washington

1977-02-14

The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.

2 JPG

English

Fredericksburg, VA

Editor:

Martha Moore's letter on the campus Judicial system requires more clarification. In the case to which she referred, I served as a defense council. Although the case involved six students, I will concentrate on one: Andy Hulcher. On the evening that the incident occurred, Andy was studying in his room with a roommate and a friend. His roommate received a phone call at 9 p.m. and returned to the room with three girls. About a half an hour later, Madison's Resident Director knocked on the door. When Andy opened the door, the Resident Director saw the girls and asked them to leave, which they did. Andy, his roommate, and his friend went to trial and were given the same penalty: three weeks strict campus, four weeks loss of key privileges, and one semester social probation. On appeal, Andy's penalty was only slightly reduced and his friends penalty reversed.

Andy's defense on appeal was in three stages 1). serious procedural errors occurred in the handling of his case, 2). these errors constitute an error of the "due process of law" clauses of both the Handbook and the 14th amendment, and 3). such violations are grounds for reversal. There were four violations of "due process" in the case of Andy Hulcher.

First, Andy was not told that when defendants are tried together, they receive the same penalty, until after the trial. His offense was in no way as serious as that of his roommate: the girls were not his guests, and he had no prior knowledge that they were coming up to the room. Andy was no more than a spectator, yet he received the same penalty. The Joint Council ruled that this was not a violation of due process of the law.

Second, the Judicial Court was particularly severe in this case relative to past cases. For example, Conrad Weiser and his roommate were caught with two female guests of Conrad's in their room after closing hours. Conrad's roommate was acquitted. Yet compare this sentence to the one the same Judicial Court gave to Andy Hulcher. The Joint Council ruled that this radical difference in penalty for the same offense does not constitute a violation of due process of the law.

Third, Andy did not have time to prepare a proper defense against the charges. He had 24 hours to study the Handbook research precedents, secure council, and interview witnesses. The Joint Council ruled that failure to allow a defendant adequate time to prepare his case did not violate due process of law.

Fourth, Madison's Judicial Representative failed to follow any of the investigative procedures outlined in pp. 65-66 of the Handbook. The Joint Council ruled that failure to conduct an investigation before accusation, failure to interview witnesses, and failure to advise the accused of his rights does not constitute a violation of due process of the law.

Thus, there were serious errors, oversights, and irregularities in handling of Andy's case by the MWC judicial system. These errors do constitute a violation of the due process clause of the Handbook.

I consulted three eminent lawyers about the case. John Zwerling, a member of the ACLU advisory board termed the actions of the Judicial court "incredible. . . a travesty." David Rosenfield, a well-known Northern Virginia attorney wrote me that "the procedural errors. . . are absolutely startling. The failure of relevant persons to follow existing written regulations regarding the administration of 'justice' on the campus. . . constitutes a clear violation of the student's Constitutional rights." The third lawyer we consulted was U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Stevens. Justice Stevens noted that "proper and set regulations must be observed by college judicial systems. A lack of procedure. . . adds to the lack of respect for the system." He further stated that had these errors occurred in a federal or state court, on appeal the verdict would be reversed.

The Joint council had all this information before them and they ignored it. I asked them at the time of the trial (and received no answer) that if the above four points do not constitute an abridgement of due process, what does? I ask again: What does due process mean at MWC? Michael Mello

Newspaper

Williams, Megan