Student Court listens to violators
Photo by Ron Bishop
Student pleads his case
This semester's last meeting of the Student Court finds a student pleading his case before a full court of seven justices—the court en banc. It is a rare occasion to find the court meeting en banc because most appeals are settled in the lower court, consisting of three associate justices.
Any student who feels his traffic tickets were unjustified may take his appeal through the (1) lower court, (2) the court en banc, (3) the University Disciplinary Board and (4) the Board of Disciplinary Appeals.
By GLORIA VOBEJDA
Kansan Staff Writer
Don't throw those traffic tickets away. If you can come up with a good reason for parking in a restricted zone or wrong zone the Student Court will probably grant your appeal.
Take the case of the young lady who parked in a wrong zone because "some guy in a black bikini jumped out of the bushes one night and scared her to death."
She told the court her attendance was required at a laboratory course. Both times she received tickets her assigned parking lot was full. She was afraid to walk on campus after dark.
The court ruled that her fear was valid and granted her appeal.
was valid and granted her appeal. The Student Court was established in March 1936. The very first case heard by the court involved the throwing of a tear gas bomb by a student at a peace mobilization meeting April 22, 1936.
A student said he had seen August Anneberg "stooping over the candle" with his hand on it.
Anneberg denied lighting the bomb as the student had testified and produced an affidavit signed by Harold Brown, a former student, saying that Brown had set off the bomb. The conflicting testimony resulted in a second trial.
The first case tried by the student court was probably the most spectacular. Since then, most of the cases have been for traffic violations.
But finally, Annesberg was absolved of all blame because of insufficient evidence.
An old clipping revealed there was a backlog of 75 to 100 traffic cases to be tried after the Anneberg case.
During the 40's there was a rash of cases for smoking violations.
In 1942 Charles B. Clement, freshman, was tried by the student court for violating the smoking regulations in University buildings. His name was turned in by C. M. Baker, director of libraries, who said he saw Clement smoking in Watson Library.
12 KANSAN May 12 1969
Expulsion was the maximum sentence for violating the Smoking Bill which was passed in 1940 but it was never inflicted. Clement received a 30-day suspension, but his sentence was immediately suspended with the stipulation
that it would automatically go into effect on a second conviction.
The minimum sentence used to be a fine for a smoking violation.
In the early days of the court, penalties for conviction included taking away hours from the student, taking away grade
points or expulsion from the University. No one seems to know just when these practices were stopped.
Joe Henderson, Wichita law student and chief justice, said most of the cases involved granting or denying appeals of traffic fines.
He said there were six
associate justices, 12 attorneys, two bailiffs and a clerk of court. They all serve alternate weeks except the clerk who works every week and is the only paid employe.
If a student wishes to appeal his ticket, said E. P. Moomau, chief of traffic and security, he has to come to our office in Hoch and fill out a petition within 10 days of the violation
If a student wishes to appeal his ticket, said E. P. Moomau, chief of traffice and security, he has to come to our office in Hoch and fill out a petition within 10 days of the violation.
The petition is left in Hoch and picked up by the court clerk, Kathy Brandes, Cheney junior, Mooaua said.
He said there were six associate justices, 12 attorneys, two bailiffs and a clerk of court. They all serve alternate weeks except the clerk who works every week and is the only paid employee.
The petition is left in Hoch and picked up by the court clerk, Kathy Brandes, Cheney junior, Moomau said.
Miss Brandes does all of the court's busy work, Henderson said. But, she also keeps a record of the disposition of all the cases and records the testimony each time the court meets.
Henderson said that Miss Brandes deserved the credit for the increased efficiency of the court. He said the time from student appeal to court decision had been shortened from two or three months to two or three weeks.
After the clerk picks up the petitions in Hoch, she sends a postcard to each petitioner telling him which Tuesday he is to appear in court, Henderson continued.
"Before he appears he must sign a docket which is kept in the Law School office. The docket is usually put up at 8 a.m. Thursday and is taken own at noon Monday, the day before the trial."
A student must sign the docket if he wishes to appear in court, but if he does not appear the second or final time he is notified, he forfeits his appeal right.
If the student loses his first appeal before the lower court of three associate justices, he may appeal to a higher court, the full court of seven justices—the court en banc.
If the student is not satisfied with the full court's decision, he may appeal his case to the University Disciplinary Board and then finally to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, whose decision is final.