Sample Precedent File - Theft and Falsification/Fraud
Charges
Charge: Property/Facilities/Services-Theft/Wrongful Appropriation Plea: Not Responsible Verdict: Responsible Vote: 5-0 Charge: Falsification/Fraud Plea: NotResponsible Verdict: Responsible Vote: 5-0Sanction(s)/Appeal
Suspension for two semesters Disciplinary probation for remainder of academic career Written assignment Educational programming Appeal: Yes Grounds: Procedural Error Appeal outcome: DeniedNarrative
#2638, Trinity sophomore, was arrested and charged by Duke Police on December 8, 2005 for obtaining property by false pretense by using another student's DukeCard. Fraudulent purchases in the amount of approximately $356 were made from student XYZ's account between September 10 and October 28, 2005. #2638 confessed to the crime and was given the first offender's program by the Durham courts. A Duke University Police Sergeant forward the case to the Office of Judicial Affairs for review. The Undergraduate Judicial Board heard the case to determine if #2638 was responsible for violations of university policy, namely Property/Facilities/ Services-Theft/Wrongful Appropriation and Falsification/Fraud.
The panel was presented with a copy of the initial police report, the arrest warrant, and a detailed statement from #2638. #2638 pleaded not responsible to both allegations. He detailed in his opening statement that he was not responsible for these charges because the police had intimidated him into confessing, and that he wanted to use the UJB hearing as a place to clear his name. He said that it was wrong and a mistake for him to have accepted responsibility as he did. He also acknowledged erring in entering his friend’s room in search of the missing DukeCard (which was “found,” according to #2638, in his friend’s drawer) that he believed would exonerate him. #2638 also detailed how special Duke was to him.
Upon questioning by the Board, the Duke Police Sergeant detailed a list of purchases and a timeline for them, including 30 Snapple bottles on the night of September 10 (which the Duke Police Sergeant believed was purchased prior to #2638 obtaining the missing DukeCard). In response to the Board’s questions about the signatures on the receipts for food orders, the Duke Police Sergeant stated that #2638’s friend signed the receipts under an agreement with #2638. #2638 would order food from various merchants on points using his friend’s cell phone because, according to #2638, his cell phone did not receive reception in the residence hall. His friend would then reimburse #2638 in cash for the food. When the food arrived, #2638 would ask his friend to go and sign for the food and told him to use the name “XXXXX” because it was his mother’s maiden name and he was thinking of changing his name. When asked about the signatures, the Duke Police Sergeant stated that the signatures varied and had the name XXXXX on most of the receipts, except two—one had #2638’s name as the signature, and the other had the name of the student to whom the DukeCard belonged.
The Duke Police Sergeant detailed for the Board his investigation. He discussed his calling #2638 in and his line of questioning and how the investigation proceeded. An interesting note was that the first thing #2638 told him even before the questioning started was that his middle name was XXXXX. The Duke Police Sergeant came to the belief after meeting with #2638 a couple of times that he was the party responsible for the fraud, and he subsequently charged him criminally. Following being charged, #2638 waived his right to remain silent and confessed to the crime in a written statement. The Sergeant also relayed that he had checked #2638’s list of names that could confirm the veracity of #2638’s alibis. He said that the alibi list did not pan out because all but two people said they could not remember back that long and that the other two said that they were out of town during that time. The Sergeant also believed that #2638 had planted the card in his friend’s room one Sunday morning before going to church and that following church had insisted that his friends help him search his friend’s room.
Following the Sergeant’s detailed summary of his investigation, the panel gave #2638 a chance to respond. #2638 continued with his defense. He stated that he never asked his friend to sign with the name XXXXX. #2638 repeated statements from his written statement detailing how the food was ordered in groups. He also continued with the accusation that the police intimidated him into confessing. He stated, as he had in his written statement, that the Sergeant told him that it would be best to confess. The Sergeant responded to this charge by stating that he advises students to confess if they are guilty (and if he believes they are guilty) so that they can get the first offender’s program if they have no prior record. He says that he does not try to intimidate students and that he only recommends a confession when he believes that a student is guilty. The panel then continued with more questions trying to understand all the details of the investigation.
Following a pause, #2638’s friend appeared as a witness. The panel asked him questions about the ordering arrangement and his drawer full of plates where the card was found. #2638’s friend detailed the system in which #2638 would order the food and he would sign with the name XXXXX. He said he thought it funny that #2638 had requested him to sign with “XXXXX,” but #2638 stated that XXXXX was a family name and that he had thought about legally changing it. #2638’s friend said that he had approached #2638 about this arrangement because he was running low on food points. The panel continued with questioning in order to fully hear #2638’s friend’s perspective. The Board then asked the Sergeant to go over the dates, times, and signatures again. Upon reviewing the third signature, the Sergeant said that there was an order placed on Wednesday, September 28 at 1:58 PM, from #2638's cell phone, where the signature was actually the victim’s name, instead of XXXXX. The Board then asked what the class schedules were for #2638 and his friend on Wednesdays. His friend detailed that he had an engineering class from 1:15 to 2:30. #2638 stated that he had philosophy class at the same time. After checking their schedules, it was determined that #2638 did not have philosophy at that time and instead had it in the morning as his friend had stated that #2638 had, because “he always complained about it.” #2638’s friend was confirmed to have his engineering class at that time. Upon questioning about this, #2638 stated that maybe it was possible that the victim had signed for the pizza that time and that he had gone to the Media Room in Keohane to study with a friend that day.
Following this, the panel asked for closing statements. #2638’s friend and the Sergeant did not have anything further to say, and #2638 finished by stating that while he admits that the recent evidence about the order on September 28 looked bad, he was not responsible for the charges. The Board then thanked all participants and began deliberations.
The Board deliberated and decided unanimously by a 5-0 vote that clear and convincing information supported finding #2638 responsible for both charges. The Board based this on the testimony of the Sergeant, as well as the important evidence of the September 28 order. The panel felt strongly that the evidence pointed to #2638’s responsibility. Following the decision, the panel deliberated on appropriate sanctions. The Board felt that strong sanctions were needed based on the amount of money taken from the victim’s flex account, the repeated fraudulent use of the victim’s DukeCard, #2638’s effort to implicate his friend, and #2638’ stubborn unwillingness to admit any guilt or remorse throughout the hearing despite strong evidence.
The panel voted 5-0 in favor of a two-semester suspension, effective beginning the 2006 summer term, with disciplinary probation to follow for the remainder of his academic career at Duke. The Board also required that he read The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead by David Callahan and write a minimum 5-page reflection paper analyzing his actions in the context of this book and what he has learned based on this experience. He should also discuss what the university’s honor code (the Duke Community Standard) means to him, especially now that he has been found in violation of it. The Board also required that he give a presentation to a group with whom he self-identified on ethical decision-making when faced with temptation to do wrong. The panel hoped that these sanctions would help #2638 reflect on his actions and believed that he can return to Duke to be a contributing member of the university community.