• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Student Newspaper (Amicus, Advocate...) Archives and Law School History 1993 Amicus Curiae (Vol. 4, Issue 6) Repository Citation "Amicus Curiae (Vol. 4, Issue 6)" (1993). Student Newspaper (Amicus, Advocate...). 359. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/newspapers/359 Copyright c 1993 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/newspapers Short gives reasons for resignation, page 9 MARSHALL-WYTHE SCHOOL OF LAW America s First Law School VOLUME IV, ISSUE SIX MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22,1993 TWENTY PAGES Short convicted of Honor Code violation By LEEANNE MORRIS roommates. Fearful that convicted student. The sanction convincing evidence of Horton said she was happy SBA President Kyle Short answering yes would jeopardize of"publi c reprimand, " however, compelling circumstances is with the trial process. "Overall (3L) was convicted of an Honor his chances of receiving aid, he means that the student's name is against the great weight of the the proceedings went very Code offense by the Judicial said no. Irish discovered this included in the notice. evidence." (Honor Code, § 5.23). smoothly; I'm not aware of any Council at a trial held Nov. 11. inaccuracy and submitted the The Council's verdict and Trial Procedure Defended major problems that occurred At a sanction hearing on Nov. accusation oflying to the Judicial recommended sanction are now Judicial Council member logistically." 12, the Council recommended Council. under review by Acting Dean Katie Horton confirmed that Short said he respected the Short be publicly reprimanded. A public statement by Short Paul Marcus. Under the Code, several members of the Council Judicial Council members for Short was accused oflying to outlining the details ofthe charge the Dean may overturn the had to recuse themselves from their work on his case even the Office of Financial Aid by appears on page 9. conviction or increase or the trial process. Chief Justice though he disagreed with the Director Edward Irish on Oct. Normally a guilty verdict decrease the severity of the David Hopkins, who is one of verdict. He pointed out some of 22. In the pr!)CCss of obtaining results in a public notice of the sanction "only if he or she Short's roommates, was one of the problem areas with the Honor additional student loans, Short trial and its outcome while believes that the Trial Panel's the members who recused was asked if he had any withholding the name of the determination of clear and himself. See TRIAL, page 20 Dean candidates visit M-W; Amicus barred from meeting By SHELLEY EVANS forum. and LULIT MILLION Following the forum the candidates The first two of five dean candidates retired with the Student Dean Search invited for on-<:ampus visits got a taste of Committee for a private session. Under W&M and the law school during the past the leadership of SBA President Kyle two weeks. Short, the Student Committee allowed an Thomas G. Krattenmaker, professor Amicus reporter to observe the meeting of law and former associate dean at with Krattenmaker and report the results Georgetown University, was the first to the student body. During Williamson's visitor Nov. 7-9. Richard A. Williamson, session, however, Amicus involvement Dick Williamson Thomas Krattenmaker Chancellor professor of law and former was abruptly terminated. Marshall-Wythe Georgetown University associate, vice, and acting dean at M-W, Regarding the ousting of Amicus continued the process Nov. 16-18. reporter Shelly Evans (2L), Dean Search further expressed regret that his opinion consisted of 15 minutes of opening In the midst of the hectic on-campus Committee Chair Jim Moliterno on the matter was not solicited earlier to meetings and interviews, each candidate explained that "every constituent needs a avoid any confusion. See VISITED, page 20 addressed the student body in an an open private interview with the candidate." He The 30-minute open forum sessions Criminal justice symposium draws diverse views to M-W By TOM MARTINCHEK environmental criminal law, to CriminaiJustice System Approaching the Law School opened the discussion by and ERIC OLSEN peremptory challenges and capital Year 2000" brought together professors, describing the "political dynamic" of the A symposium on criminal justice drew punishment. practitioners and judges, many of whom environmental movement and how large crowds at the law school on Nov. 11, Co-sponsored by the Bill of Rights had strikingly different views. Congress has reacted to it. as panelists in three separate sessions Instituteand William & MaryLawReview, The focus of the sessions were articles Describing the "Politician's debated issues ranging from the symposium, entitled "The American recently published in the Law Review. Dilemma," Schroeder noted that while The authors of the articles presented politicians would like to enact reasonable thoughts on their respective topics, and environmental laws, they are pressured the other panelists responded in turn. by each other to "get tougher" and wind Federal Environmental Criminal Law up enacting very stringent laws like the In the first hour-long session, panelists Clean Air Act, that eventually fail due to considered the increasing tendency by unrealistic or even unattainable goals. Congress to crirninalize certain types of conduct that lead to environmental harm. See CRIME, page. 20 Professor Christopher Schroeder ofDuke ---Inside this issue _...;;.._-__.________ ........... ___:0 Student Search Committee meets Australian Justice defends Dean candidates. Page 3. Aboriginal rights. Page 4. Play penned by Con Law guru • Psych test: How much trouble Acting Dean Paul Marcus leadstbe discussion of criminal performed at UCLA. Page 8. are you really in"? Page 10. justice topics. 2 ======================================================= Monday, November 22,1993 THE AMIcus CURIAE Out Of Our Heads EXAM PREPARATIOIJ ADV/(E~ The ousting of the Amicus reporter from the Student Dean Search Committee certainly raises a question about what pur­ pose this committee is actually supposed to serve. When the Amicus was first invited to the meetings, its purpose was to provide a forum for the candidates to respond to student concerns and for the students to evaluate those responses. Although open forums are an excellent means for the student body to gain a general impression of the dean candidates, we all recognize that having the candidates meet with the entire student .body is not an effective way for them to address individual student questions with any specificity. The Student Dean Search Committee appeared to be an admirable way to elicit candid answers from the candidates while simultaneously perinitting student reaction based on something more than the candidates replies to a few broad questions. Now it appears that student input into the dean search process is only intended to go one way. The Student Dean Search Committee tells the candidates what our concerns are, but the student body as a whole is not permitted to know how the candidates will respond to those concerns. Consequently, we are denied the opportunity to react in any reasonably informed manner. Instead, we will just have to wait until the dean selection is made and find out how he will act (or not act) then. Perhaps the administration does not take the opinion of students as seriously as it should. Certainly the opinions of gift­ giving alumni are considered seriously in the dean selection From the Editors' Desk ... process. Doesn't the administration realize that today's stu­ Those of us who know Kyle that no matter how nice a guy the student body, the faculty and dents are tomorrow's alumni? Short personally (99.9 percent you are, no matter who your the administration, the Honor Notwithstanding our disappointment in the decision to ofthe student body) undoubtedly friends are, the Honor Code does Code is meaningless. exclude coverage of the Student Dean Search Committee meet­ are shocked by the news of his not play favorites. Under our An Honor Code conviction is ings, the open forums have been a valuable addition to the conviction. No one could Honor System, we are all held to automatically appealed to the search process. The tremendous turn-outs to date are a testa­ imagine a nicer person having to the same standard of honesty dean for review. Kyle's case is ment to the importance of the dean selection in the eyes of the go through such a gut-wrenching and integrity. It also currently on Dean Marcus' desk. students. Certainly the amount of student interest generated in process. It is certainly not dt;mo~trates that we as s~dents He has the discretion to apply his this year's search process is not lost on the candidates. something anyone wants to face are capabJe ofpolicing ourselv~s perso~al judgment by Although it is unfortunate that the last three candidates will themselves. and judging each other overturning the conviction or be visiting so close to (and even into) the exam period, we Whether or not you agree impartially. changing the sanction, or to encourage everyone to go hear the remaining candidates. The that what Kyle did warranted a During the past several years, accept the recommendation of sustained interest and participation of the student body reflects trial or that the recommended there has been much talk about the Judicial Council. well on the law school by impressing on the candidates the sanction is appropriate, the trial the problems with the Honor The action he takes will seriousness with which we consider their remarks. definitely demonstrated that our Code and many attempts to revise impact not only Kyle, but the Honor System works. Ifsomeone it. This semester has seen the entire student body.

Load more

  21

Copy Link