By MATT CHITTUM
ROANOKE TIMES

At the same time, the court denied a motion by VMI that a federal court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

The honor court trial of six Virginia Military Institute cadets accused of lying about alleged hazing incidents will go forward, though it's unclear exactly when.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied motions by the cadets' lawyers to further delay the honor court trial and to expedite their appeal of U.S. District Judge James Turk's refusal to rule on whether the cadets' confessions were obtained unconstitutionally.

At the same time, the court denied a motion by VMI that a federal court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Assistant Attorney General Tabor Cronk, counsel for VMI, had argued that VMI is a state agency and is protected by the 11th amendment, which provides "sovereign immunity" to state governments.

"Obviously, we're disappointed that they didn't enjoin the trial," said Katherine Londos, a Roanoke attorney representing the three accused freshmen. "But what they appear to have said is that there is jurisdiction" for the case to be heard in federal court.

Steven Grist, co-counsel for the freshmen, said they have two options.

They could let the honor court trial go forward and if the verdict is guilty, go back to the 4th Circuit, which Grist said is " not a great option."

Or they could go back to Turk and "say to him, the 4th Circuit did not dismiss this on jurisdictional grounds and in a roundabout way said there is jurisdiction," and ask him to rule on the case.

Either way, they must act quickly. If the cadets are found guilty, they will be immediately expelled.

It was unclear Friday evening when the honor trial will occur. Grist does not believe it can happen before Tuesday, because the attorneys have not been given notice and could not be prepared in time.

VMI would not divulge trial plans, citing the confidentiality of the honor system.

"We have great faith that the honor system, which has been in place almost since VMI's founding, will render a fair judgement," VMI spokesman Mike Strickler said.

The cadets' attorneys went before Turk Monday seeking a stay of the trial, which was scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday. Turk denied the motion after Cronk agreed to voluntarily postpone the trial until at least this coming Monday. He was concerned that the honor court proceeding was akin to a criminal trial, in which federal court would have no jurisdiction.

The attorneys hoped to buy time to argue that the cadets' constitutional rights were violated by the manner in which the investigation of the alleged hazing was carried out. Turk acknowledged the lawyers had raised "grave questions of constitutional magnitude."

Cadet investigators were originally looking into whether the three seniors - Phantamith Prompol and Donald Evans of Alexandria and Jason Roderiques of North Dartmouth, Mass. - had operated a "whacking system" in their barracks room, in which the rats assigned to them for mentoring received licks with a belt for offenses such as bad grades or spilling drinks in the room.

The freshmen are Brandon Michael Crane of Evansville, Ind., Arnold Jesse Gore of Chesterfield, and Terence Milton Redmond of Hockessin, Del. All six cadets initially denied the system existed, then admitted it. They were then charged with lying in violation of the honor code, which says "a cadet does not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do."

The seniors argued their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated, because while they were told they did not have to incriminate themselves, they were asked directly if they had struck the freshmen. They either had to incriminate themselves or lie. Cadets call the tactic "using your honor against you."

The freshmen argued they were caught between two precious VMI systems - the mentoring system and the honor code - and forced to choose between protecting their mentors or incriminating them. The result, they argued, is an "unconstitutionally vague" disciplinary system.

Bowlman T. Bowles, a Richmond lawyer and lead counsel for Prompol, could not be reached for comment.

Attorneys for the other two seniors weren't sure what to make of the ruling Friday evening, according to attorney Hal St. Clair of Lexington.

"We're going to prepare for trial," he said.