| OCR Text |
Show I Review the ASUU Judiciary The weeks following elections always see a flurry of action for the Associated Students of the University of Utah (ASUU) Judiciary, which is the official student court. By constitution the court has the right to try cases of violations viola-tions against or by students and student organizations. The student judges are presently sitting in judgment on violations filed against the past candidates, both winners and losers alike, for their crimes of over-spending the budgets, bud-gets, putting posters in dirt, speaking without clearing the engagement and doing other unethical campaign procedures. They perform this task very well. The candidates have prepaid pre-paid a $13 fee against which the Judiciary can levy fines and collect default payment. Because of this set-up, many of the defendants never bother to appear before the court, and like the city traffic bureau, the offensives are cleared up by forfeiture. Yet the defects of the system become very apparent in more important trials ,such as the one which presently involves Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Student Affairs Committee. As a result of this trial some students are questioning the worth of the Judiciary. Some think it is a farce. One glaring problem is the subpoenaing of witnesses. The court, as does any court, has the right to refuse to call a witness or hear one if it deems that the evidence given would be worthless or time-wasting. However, the court should have the power to subpoena withnesses that it feels will bring important, relevant testimony. The ASUU Judiciary Ju-diciary does not apparently have such power. Repeatedly it subpoenaed administrators to testify before the court, and the administrators did not appear or even respond to the subpoena. It was rumored that they were "busy" or "going out of town." The court hummed and hawed, and nothing was done. A court cannot successfully function without evidence, and the evidence often cannot be gathered or verified without with-out witnesses. If the witnesses can treat a subpoena as merely an announcement or an invitation and if the court has no power with which to support their subponeas, then the court's judgment can be questioned. The absence of the plaintiffs, as in the SDS trial, is also perplexing. Such a situation makes it appear as if the defendants are guilty until proven innocent. Another major drawback is the appointment of judges. New appointees have been placed on the bench while the trial was in process. In any other court, a new trial or retrial re-trial would be required in such a situation. We question the ASUU Judiciary's performance, and we think that its powers and operation should be revealed. |
