In the wake of a State Supreme Court ruling that determined the Student-Wide Judiciary violated a student's right to due process, UB's student justices may find themselves in violation of another set of rules - their own.
SWJ re-filed charges against Zheng Hao Ma, a junior mechanical engineering major who was accused of tampering with a student's computer and abusing UB's network in October of 2001.
According to Ma's Group Legal Services defender, John Menard, the re-filed charges violate SWJ's Rules of Procedure, which state that "the Court shall complete proceedings on any individual pleading not responsible by the end of the next full semester after the complaint has been filed."
To comply with these regulations, Menard said SWJ should have finished its proceedings by Spring 2002.
"The rules are pretty explicit on what they are allowed to do," Menard said. "They really haven't provided us with any info on why they are going to re-file."
"Filing of all charges in any way shape or form is only done through the university," said SWJ Chief Justice Trevor Torcello. "I have no control over charges."
The original complaint against Ma was brought to the floor of the State Supreme Court, where Judge Frederick Marshall overturned the case on the ground that it took SWJ 10 months to hear the trial against Ma, violating the student's right to a fair and speedy trial.
During the original case, Torcello recused himself, due to involvement in both the pretrial and sanctions hearings. However, Torcello informed Menard that SWJ would be re-filing charges against Ma and that Torcello was originally set to preside over the new hearings.
"That unto itself is kind of problematic because he did recuse himself in the case earlier this year," said Menard.
Torcello said that while he could not talk about specifics in any previous or present case before SWJ, they were taking precautions to make sure that their actions regarding the State Supreme Court ruling are just.
"We're going to be guided by the Attorney General's office - we have been guided by the Attorney General's office - in assuring we're in compliance with the decision," said Torcello.
Before Fall Recess, Menard said Torcello gave Ma and himself the option of holding a hearing immediately with justices who have already presided over the case, or waiting until next semester, when unbiased justices could hear the case.
Menard said the choice was clear: He and Ma will wait until next semester.
Torcello said that he could not comment on this issue.
For Ma, this ordeal will have been going on for well over a year before it reaches trial, and though SWJ has not taken away his computer privileges or made him do community service, as they did with the original case, he said he is still leery of SWJ's practices.
"I don't know what they are going to throw at me this time," Ma said. "They're always full of surprises."
Menard also said he is unsure of what he can expect from SWJ. He originally intended to file a motion to dismiss the case, but SWJ adopted new Rules and Procedures, which state that defenders from Group Legal Services are no longer allowed to file motions in hearings.
"They changed it because they didn't want me making motions," he said.
For Menard, the last-minute changes and re-filing procedures are a symptom of a larger problem.
"I think it just indicates that they have a blatant disregard for their own rules," Menard said. "I think at this point, the leadership in the Judiciary needs to change or they need to wake up to the fact that their system is in decline."
Photo: Meredith Forrest Kulwicki
