COLUMN: Honor Code cases tried with thorough procedures

---

by Jay Fundling

---

WE NOW rejoin the ongoing story of the inside of the Honor Council's workings.

The trial is held in a room with a large table in the middle. The chair is at one end of the table with an empty space on one side for witnesses and two spaces on the other side for the ombuds and the accused.

At the other end of the table is the recording equipment. Microphones are spread over the table to record everything said by the accused, witnesses and the Honor Council. Everything said relevant to the trial must be captured on tape for the purpose of appeals.

When the council is silently looking over evidence or waiting for a witness to appear, the tape is turned off. Conversely, when the tape runs out and must be replaced, all discussion, no matter how heated, instantly stops until the new tape is put in.

As the accused walks in, the council stands up and each member says his/her name. The accused and the ombuds then each say their names.

As everyone sits down, the chair passes around large packets of evidence which the accused has already seen but the council has not.

Also often included is the test or paper in question, depositions from witnesses who are not going to appear at the trial and other material evidence the investigative committee or accused determined to be relevant.

At this point, the chair reads the letter of accusation out loud.

One of the council members, the trial clerk, then reads to the accused the matriculation pledge he signed upon entering Rice: "I, the undersigned, signify that I have read the constitution of the honor system and hereby pledge my support to it. I understand what is expected of me as a student of Rice University, that my obligation to satisfy the requirements of the honor system extends from my matriculation to my graduation, that a plea of ignorance will not be accepted by the Honor Council."

The trial clerk also reads the rights of the accused:

* The accused may testify, present evidence or make no statement.

* The accused shall have the right to bring forth any evidence or testimony.

* The accused shall have the right to review and dispute any evidence or testimony.

* The council may hear no character witnesses either for or against the accused.

* The accused shall have the right to sum up the case before the council decides the verdict, in the case of a trial, and the penalty in the case of a hearing.

* The accused shall maintain the secrecy of the identity of the persons involved in the case other than himself or herself.

The accused then enters a plea of "in violation" or "not in violation."

Up to this point, what has happened has been a preliminary hearing. If the accused pleads "in violation," a hearing follows.

A hearing runs exactly like a trial except that the council is only trying to determine punishment, not if a violation occurred. For a hearing, only seven council members vote on the outcome.

If the accused pleads "not in violation," a trial with nine voting members will follow. Whichever way the accused pleads, he has the option at that point of delaying the trial or hearing for up to five class days.

For the sake of simplicity, we will assume the accused pleads "not in violation" and does not choose to delay the trial.

The trial begins, and the accused has the option of making an opening statement, often using prepared notes. Often, the council then stops the tape recorder to silently look at the evidence for a few minutes.

The council then begins informal questioning of the accused. The council's goal at this point is to gain a clear understanding of the situation in question. The accused can also volunteer any information for discussion or refrain from providing any answers.

This questioning process continues throughout the course of the trial. This discussion is the heart of the trial and is only interrupted by questioning of witnesses.

When the council is ready for the witnesses, they come in and, once again, the council members introduces themselves.

The witness is then sworn in by the trial clerk with the following oath: "I (witness' name) will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in relation to the inquiry about which I am to give evidence, and I will maintain secrecy about this trial and the persons involved."

The witness is then questioned by both the accused and the council. Questions are asked one at a time as they come up, with no strict rules differentiating between questions asked by the council or the accused.

After all the witnesses have been heard from, the council questions the accused further. This goes on until all the members feel they have no more questions.

The accused is then informed that the council will not be able to ask questions after hearing the closing statement. If the accused has any more information he would like to put out for discussion, he is allowed to do so then.

Finally, the accused has the option of summing up his case, and then he leaves the trial room.

At this point the Honor Council enters into deliberation. This is a very lengthy process which is not as structured as the first part of the trial.

Therefore, I will once again leave you waiting until my letter next week to hear about the next stage of the process.

Jay Fundling is an Honor Council senior representative and a Wiess College senior.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the February 9, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX, 77005, USA.