LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – A superior court judge's ruling that there wasn't enough evidence for a University of Southern California student to be disciplined for allegedly cheating on an exam has been reversed by a state appeals court.
California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, Division Seven did not weigh in on whether the degree awarded in May 2017 to the student, identified in court documents as John Doe, accused of cheating about two years prior, should be rescinded.
"Determining the ultimate effect of our reversal of the superior court's judgment, including whether Doe’s degree should be rescinded or the two-semester suspension imposed nearly three years after it was ordered, are matters properly entrusted to USC in the first instance," the appeals court said in its 30-page decision. "Accordingly, although we raised the issue with our invitation for supplemental briefing, we decline to resolve it at this time."
The Appeals Court reversed and remanded an earlier decision by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Howard L. Halm to grant Doe's petition for writ of administrative mandamus. Halm ordered USC's Office of Student Judicial Affairs and Community Standards (SJACS) to vacate the discipline handed down against Doe for allegedly violating the university's academic integrity standards, according to the background portion of the appeals court's decision.
The ruling initially was compiled Sept. 19 but was certified for publication with minor revisions on Oct. 9.
Judge Dennis M. Perluss wrote the appeals court's decision for the majority. Judges Laurie D. Zelon and John Shepard Wiley Jr. concurred in the decision. Wiley, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, had been assigned to the appeals court panel for this case.
In its appeal, USC claimed Halm was wrong to find evidence was insufficient to support SJACS's finding that Doe and another student cheated on a biology final. Following the SJACS review, Doe received an "F" for the class and a two-semester suspension.
Doe argued that even if there was substantial evidence, the appeals court should still affirm the lower court's ruling "because USC’s internal discipline and review procedures as applied in this case lacked fundamental fairness and did not comply with the university's own rules," the appeals court's decision said.
The appeals court rejected Doe's argument.
"Although reasonable factfinders could disagree, substantial evidence supports USC’s decision that Doe cheated, a determination reached after a fair, albeit less than perfect, process," the appeals court's decision said.