Abstract of the Honor Council
Case #26, Spring 2006
September 12, 2006

Members Present:
Becky Thilo (presiding), Court Jackson (Clerk), Ryan Stinnett (recording), Annalise Gill, Allie Obermeyer, Amber Raley, Farhan Katchi, Jon Jackson, Tara Grigg, Spencer Crouch (observing), Austin Ginnings (observing), Jackie Ammons (observing), Chris Koops (observing)

Ombuds:
Robert Dahnke

Letter of Accusation:
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from a professor in a lower level math course stating that Student A’s take-home exam was turned in, went missing, and returned a day after the due date with Student B’s exam.

Evidence Submitted:

• Letter of Accusation
• Student A's Exam
• Student B's Exam
• Student A's written statement
• Student B's written statement
• Syllabus
• Deposition of Professor A
• Analysis of Professor B
• Analysis of Professor C
• Exam Prompt
• Checks and Bank Statements from May 2006
• Receipt from Store
• Scholarship Nomination Form
• Cell Phone bills and history from witness
• ATM and Debit Card withdrawals
• Map of weekend destination
• Map showing distance between job and Rice
• Note from Boss
• Note from Academic advisor
• Tutoring log
• Timeline of events for Student B

Plea:
Student A pled Not in Violation.
Student B pled Not in Violation.

Testimony:
Student A said that the accuser's account is pretty much what happened.

Student B said she thought the exam was due later than it was. She asked for an extension and turned it in the next day. Student B then reiterated that she did not cheat. She began presenting new evidence with a copy of an award she was presented. The student then explained her reasoning on the exam and how it differed from Student A. Student B explained that she works mostly in her head or on scratch paper which would account for the missing work compared to Student A. She then proceeded to work out the problem while explaining her steps. Next, the student said she had a tutor help her through the class which was very challenging. She presented evidence to show she had a tutor and said that the tutoring made the information fresh in his mind.

The student then entered evidence to account for her whereabouts. She brought in a witness to prove they were together for lunch and throughout the day on the first day in question. She provided a note from her manager at work, a map of the route involved, receipts from various restaurants, as well as a detailed plan from the weekend. The basic point was that she had no time to take Student A's test.

The witness corroborated Student B’s testimony and said what they did after their job and that they were together for most of the time in question.

The Council asked both students what they remembered about turning in their exams. The students knew the times but not what other exams were present. Council members asked what the students thought about the professors' opinions.

Student A concluded by saying she agreed with the accuser's information.
Student B said this was her first time seeing Student A and that she did not cheat. 

Verdict Deliberations:
Council members generally felt that the testimony was true and that there was only scattered evidence of a violation. Some Council members questioned whether one or both of the tests could be found in violation. The Council then debated if the test going missing warranted further discussion or if there was in fact a violation but that it could not be attributed to the students.

Straw Poll #1
Is there clear and convincing evidence that a violation occurred?
Yes: 1
No: 8 + 4 non binding
Abstentions: 0

Straw Poll 1 was made binding.
Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A and Student B not in violation of the Honor Code.

Respectfully submitted,
Court Jackson
Clerk