Verbal Flow-Chart of Process

*N.B. This document is intended to provide students with a narrative of the flow chart of the judicial process.

Introduction
Your First Meeting
The Interview/Investigation
Written Statement
The Charge Decision
Scheduling Your Hearing and Hearing Preparation
The Hearing
Contested Cases
Sanction Statement
Uncontested Cases
Post Hearing Sanction Review

1. Introduction

The intent of the judicial process at Stanford University is to provide both the reporting party and the student about whom a concern is raised a fair and impartial forum, conducted with respect and civility by all participants. To that end, the Student Judicial Charter of 1997 grants certain rights and imposes certain obligations in addition to outlining the adjudication process itself. This document explains the operational practices of the Office of Judicial Affairs.

2. Your First Meeting

Normally, your initial meeting is with both the Judicial Advisor (JA) and the Judicial Officer (JO). The JO will briefly describe the nature of the concern and what evidence is available to support it. The JO then leaves, and the JA will then walk you through the Charter, discussing in particular your rights and responsibilities. You are encouraged to ask the JA questions about the process in general and specifically as it relates to your situation – although of course if you have questions, you may contact the Judicial Advisor before and after this meeting.

3. The Interview/Investigation

The next step is to set up an appointment to meet with the JO. (Frequently, this meeting simply follows your initial meeting with the JA). At that time, the JO will review with you the letter of concern and the available evidence. This is usually your first opportunity to explain your position regarding the allegations. It is important to remember that if your case goes to a hearing before a six-person Judicial Panel of faculty, staff and students that the JO is the person who presents ALL the evidence, incriminating and exculpatory, so it is in your best interest to talk frankly with the JO about the situation. The JO will ask you questions, which of course you may choose not to answer (as you have the right not to self-incriminate).

Typical questions might include the following:

Do you agree that the factual allegations have merit?
If you agree that the factual allegations have merit, do you agree they constitute a violation of the Honor Code or the Fundamental Standard?
- [Note: If you agree that the allegations constitute a violation, the JO will then explain the usual progression of an uncontested case.]
If you disagree with the factual allegations themselves, or agree with the allegations but disagree that they constitute a violation, you will be asked your reasons and what evidence you have to support your contention(s). Please be assured that any disagreement with the allegations, or agreement with the allegations but denial they constitute a violation, will be discussed with the reporting party and carefully reviewed by the JO during the JO’s follow-up investigation.

The JO will keep you informed of the progress of the investigation and share all information or evidence gathered. In many cases students may receive copies of such information; if copies are not released the responding student, the reporting party, and their personal advisers, may review them, as many times as they wish, and may taker liberal notes. Please note that the JO will act as mediator/facilitator/go-between if you have questions for the reporting party about the evidence or other related matters. It is requested that you not contact the reporting party directly to avoid potential misunderstandings.

Do not forget that you have the right to speak with the JA or to request a peer Judicial Counselor at any time during meeting(s) with the JO, and/or the right to have a person of your choice accompany you throughout the investigative and adjudicative process.

4. Written Statement

During the course of the investigation, the JO will encourage you to submit a written explanation of your position and the reasons therefore. This is given to the reporting party – and sometimes leads the reporting party to withdraw the concern because the explanation is reasonable and persuasive. In other cases the reporting party will explain to the JO how the written explanation is not persuasive. You will be informed of the reporting party’s response. Please note that you are not required to provide a written statement during the investigative phase, but it is often the best method to explain your position in your own words. Ultimately, if the case is charged and goes to a hearing, this statement, prepared while the situation is fresh in your mind, will serve as a draft of the statement given to the Judicial Panel at a hearing. A written explanation of your defense is in your best interest.

5. The Charge Decision

If the JO determines there is insufficient evidence to support a formal charge (or sufficient evidence to support the allegations but which fall short of rising to the level of a disciplinary matter), the JO will inform you of the JO’s decision not to charge in writing. Typical reasons for this decision might include:

Your explanation and/or the evidence you have provided the JO persuaded the reporting party and/or JO that no violation occurred.
There is insufficient obtainable or available evidence to warrant further investigation.
In cases involving an alleged Fundamental Standard violation, the concern does not rise to the level of misconduct contemplated by the Charter in terms of past policy and practice.

Note: Please remember that if the reporting party disagrees with the JO’s no-charge decision, he or she may request an Evidentiary Hearing– which simply means that a Judicial Panel will review the evidence and decide either to uphold the JO’s decision or to instruct the JO to file a charge.

If the JO determines there is sufficient evidence to warrant a charge, you will receive a formal letter outlining the alleged violation and the evidence on which the JO based the determination; the letter also will note the anticipated witnesses and, if known, the date of the hearing. You will be asked to meet with the JO and the JA (at least once) to prepare for the hearing.

6. Scheduling Your Hearing and Hearing Preparation

The Judicial Assistant arranges the earliest mutually acceptable hearing date, after consultation with you and the reporting party. (The Charter recommends a hearing within three weeks of the charge decision, but this is flexible, depending on many academic factors.) You may choose to attend and participate actively in the hearing, participate via a telephone conference call or simply rely on your written statement and evidentiary documentation that the JO will put before the Judicial Panel on your behalf. If you are weighing the pros and cons of attending or participating from a distance, you should talk with the JA and get the benefit of the JA’s experience with hearings of both kinds.

Witnesses. If witnesses other than you yourself and the reporting party are required or requested, the Judicial Assistant also will try to accommodate their schedules. Should you wish to call witnesses not noted in the charge letter or in later communications, it is your responsibility to arrange for their participation. Witnesses generally are limited to speaking to the facts and issues of your case, and are required to submit a pre-hearing statement to the JO about the general nature of their intended testimony at least five business days (preferably earlier) before the hearing. This enables the JO to make a preliminary decision regarding relevance to the case for presentation to the Judicial Panel.
Evidence. The JO has the responsibility to present evidence that supports the charges, evidence of an exculpatory nature and evidence of extenuating or exacerbating circumstances. This is why it is important for you to tell the JO about or bring to the JO’s attention any evidence that supports your defense, as early as possible, so that the JO has time to verify or corroborate that evidence before the hearing. All evidence and written documentation must be submitted at least five business days before the hearing.
Personal Advisers. You may choose to have any support person with you at your hearing. If you intend to bring such a support person/personal adviser, please let the JAO know as soon as possible – but at least five business days before the hearing – so that adequate room accommodations can be made.
1. Note: Your adviser cannot serve as a witness. (See bylaw regarding Role of the Personal Adviser.)
Hearing Preparation Meeting. Once a hearing date has been set, it is to your benefit to meet with both the JO and the JA at least once. They will talk you through the hearing, discuss what documentary evidence will be presented, the general nature of anticipated witness testimony and help you prepare you for the type of questions the Judicial Panel may ask you. You will also be given the names of the potential panelists (and informed of bias check practices and procedures) to make sure that you do not know any of them. The JA also will discuss possible sanctions, should you be found responsible, and advise you about what information and documentation you should think about presenting to the Panel related to the short and long-term impact of specific penalties.

7. The Hearing

Each Judicial Panel must have four students out of a total of six members. At least one faculty member must serve on any Honor Code case; the sixth panelist can also be a faculty member or can be a staff person. No faculty member is mandatory for Fundamental Standard cases; that is, two staff members may be seated. Hearings usually last from 30 minutes to an hour, but can be much longer, depending on the complexity of the evidence, the number of witnesses, etc.

Most hearings are held in a Tresidder Memorial Union second-floor conference room. Panelists usually face you, the JO and the reporting party (unless you consent for him/her to be absent). The JA sits at one end of the table, monitoring the audio tape recorder, which preserves the formal record of the proceedings. The JA is available for questions from participants about procedure.

[Note: Judicial Panel deliberations are not tape-recorded.]

The setting is designed to make all participants feel as comfortable as possible, under the circumstances. In some cases a new panelist in training or a member of the Board on Judicial Affairs will observe the hearing for training or informational purposes. Such observers are obligated to preserve confidentiality. They will sit away from the table and will not participate in the hearings or the Judicial Panel’s deliberations.

Before the hearing begins, you will have an opportunity to see all of the panelists (including alternate panelists) and to tell the JA if you recognize anyone and believe that person could present a possible bias or conflict of interest. At that point, you and the JA can step outside the hearing room to discuss your concerns; the JA will then assess the potential bias or conflict and determine if a panelist (or panelists) should be excused.

The Chair of the Judicial Panel (always one of the student members) will begin the hearing with a reminder about the confidential nature of the proceedings, and the nature of the charge at issue.

You will be asked at that point to confirm that all documents pertinent to the case have been provided and made available in the hearing, such as the charge letter, the letter of concern and your written statement.
You will also be asked to confirm your position.
The Panel will then begin to ask questions.
In addition to answering the Panel's questions, you will also have an opportunity to ask questions and make statements (or you can rely on your written statement).
If there are witnesses, they will also be called in one at a time (they are seated outside the hearing room). Witnesses may be questioned by panelists, by you, by the JO, or by the reporting party (if he/she has been present at the hearing).

8. Contested Cases

Following the evidentiary portion in contested cases, the Chair will adjourn the hearing and the Judicial Panel will go into executive session (with the tape recorder off) to decide whether or not a violation has occurred. The JA remains with the Panel to answer any questions about process and procedure only. Deliberations can take anywhere from 15 minutes to several hours – again, it depends on the complexity of the case.

You and the JO will return to the hearing room and the Chair will read the Panel’s findings into the record. If the decision is that you are not responsible, the Panel adjourns and the process is concluded.

If the Panel’s decision holds you accountable (by a minimum vote of 5-1), you are given the opportunity to discuss with (or submit a written statement to) the Panel regarding sanctions (this portion of the hearing is again tape-recorded). Please note that if you intend to ask for a non-standard penalty, you are strongly encouraged to tell or submit a statement to that effect to the JA at least five business days before the hearing. The JA will attempt to verify the information you are providing about why a different or more lenient penalty would be appropriate. For instance, Panels usually want to know the following:

Your academic plans (e.g., course requirements, course scheduling should you get the standard penalty of one quarter’s suspension and 40 hours of community service, etc.),
Your plans after graduation (especially if it is within the year),
Assistantships, internships, scholarships, etc. that will be impacted,
Visa or other immigration status ramifications if you are an international student, and
Information about other aspects of your situation that demonstrates that the standard penalty would have an undue impact.

Click here for a more detailed description of hearings in contested cases.

Download a sample form of hearing outline in a contested case (pdf).

9. Sanction Statement

Your sanction statement, oral or written, should address each of the above bulleted points, if relevant to your situation; how the standard sanction would unduly impact each such point; what “in lieu of” penalty you think would be appropriate; and proof in support of your rationale. Sanction statements are given to the Judicial Panel only if you have been found responsible.

Sanctions are based on Stanford’s student judicial affairs “case law/precedent”, the nature of the violation and verifiable information you provide to the Panel regarding the effect certain sanctions would have on you, particularly as it relates to academics. While deviations from the norm are not common, panels have granted them when persuaded of the merits.

Please see the Guide to the Penalty Code and Judicial Sanctions for more information about sanctions and sanction statements.

The Judicial Panel again adjourns to executive session to consider sanctions -a process that can last from minutes to an hour or more. You will be notified of their decision when deliberations are completed.

10. Uncontested Cases

Following the evidentiary portion in uncontested cases, you will have an opportunity to present your arguments regarding sanctions before the Judicial Panel adjourns into executive session to decide both responsibility and sanctions. All of the information and advice applicable to the penalty phase in contested cases (see above) is applicable to uncontested cases. In other words, there will only be one hearing and deliberation session in an uncontested case.

Finally, please understand that neither the JA nor individual panel members will provide you with specific information about panel deliberations other than what is written in the hearing report (a copy of which you can have, upon request).

Click here for a more detailed description of hearings in uncontested cases.

Download a sample form of hearing outline in an uncontested case (pdf).

11. Post Hearing Sanction Review

Section III.I.11 of the Charter mandates that the Dean of Students must review all sanctions for consistency with the Student Conduct Penalty Code and past practice. The Dean may ask a Judicial Panel to reconsider all or a portion of a decision, but cannot overturn it. Reconsidered decisions are final and not subject to further review. The only penalty that can be revised or overturned by a Stanford administrator is expulsion, which is a recommendation that must be reviewed by the Provost. The Provost also can reduce the sanction or uphold the Panel’s recommendation.

JAO > Judicial Process > Verbal Flow-Chart of Process