The New York State Supreme Court handed down judgment on Thursday on a petition against the Student Wide Judiciary, in which the defendant claimed that the SWJ interfered with the constitutionally protected rights of a student.
The ruling from the court stated that the procedures used in a case against UB student Zheng Hao Ma were "arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the petitioner's due process rights."
According to John Menard, Ma's Group Legal Services defender, Ma was not given a fair and speedy trial for his part in an October 2001 instance of computer abuse on the UB network.
Instead of holding a trial, the SWJ prosecutors filed a motion of summary judgment, which condensed the case against Ma so that it could be resolved during the pre-trial hearing, a method that had never been used in UB's student judicial system.
"I think it's actually a sad day that those who are in charge of the system didn't have any qualms about violating their own rules," said Menard. "It's kind of disturbing."
SWJ Chief Justice Trevor Torcello said that he is not available to comment on specifics of the case at this time.
Ma's case dates back to October 2001, when he received a virus while downloading from a computer on the network. Ma deleted the virus from the user's computer, allegedly uploaded several files and encouraged others to do the same, as a warning of the danger that completely open sharing can pose.
According to Menard, several other students went to the user's computer and left files, movies and erased portions of the user's operating system.
"Pretty much, everybody else did all the work, and the school blamed me for it," said Ma.
While Menard said that Ma's uploaded files stated that the user should delete the virus and be careful, he acknowledged that Ma was still in the wrong.
"It's not cool to basically frig up someone's computer," said Menard.
After Ma was brought up on charges by the SWJ, he was told that his computer privileges were suspended until further notice.
"It was horrible," said Ma. "They closed my Ethernet port; they closed all my accounts and my access to UBLearns."
"I had about three out of four classes that used the UBLearns during the spring semester," said Ma. "I couldn't access them at all."
According to Menard, the pre-trial hearing, which usually takes place soon after charges are filed, was delayed for nearly five months.
"I was surprised that this university actually let me wait for five months," said Ma. "It is one of the biggest universities in New York State."
At the pre-trial hearing, Menard filed a motion to dismiss, based on a case at SUNY Oswego that was thrown out after taking more than three months to go to trial. The case established a precedent for the timeframe for a speedy trial, said Menard.
SWJ denied the motion to dismiss, and the prosecution requested a motion for summary judgment, which, according to Menard, is a motion often used in civil litigation but which has never been used in the UB court system before.
The motion consolidates the evidence in the trial, and a ruling is made immediately. Ma was found guilty on all but one charge and consequently sentenced to 120 hours of community service and suspension of computer privileges through the summer semester of 2002.
Along with the court's decision, Torcello sent a letter to Menard, suspending him from practicing in front of the SWJ courts.
Menard said Torcello might have felt that the motion to dismiss had been filed improperly, resulting in Menard's suspension.
"I submitted the motion in a way that is better than in the rules," said Menard, who said he was not given a meeting or a hearing before the notice of his suspension.
Menard was later reinstated and appealed the decision on Ma's case, but since Torcello had been at, and participated in, both the pre-trial and the sanctions hearings, he had to recuse himself from the case.
"The appellant cannot expect to receive a fair review of issues when such a flagrant conflict of interest permeated the process of appellate review," stated Group Legal Services' Challenge for Cause, which asked that Torcello be removed from presiding over the case.
Menard then filed a petition, Article 78, with the State Supreme Court, which outlined the events of the case and in effect asked for a reversal of the SWJ ruling.
The State Supreme Court ruling said that both the length of time and the motion of summary judgment in Ma's case violated his constitutional rights to a speedy and fair trial.
SWJ now has the option to re-file the case, but according to Menard, this will be in violation of its own rules.
"I think (the ruling) shows the entire Student Wide Judiciary process needs a revision," said Menard. "I think it's a symptom of the wider picture in the rules procedure."
Ma said that while he is relieved that the case is finally over, he still has little control.
"I am not quite sure what the university will do next - whether they will re-file the charges again," he said.
Torcello said that the university had not received formal notification of the ruling from the State Supreme Court and could not comment on the future of the case until that time.
"Once we get notification from the university, we'll do what we always do - which is the right thing," said Torcello.
Photo: Meredith Forrest Kulwicki
