[Correction Appended]For a trial that Union Judiciary Chief Justice Jamie Ansorge '09 declared "one of the most epic in Brandeis history," something clearly was missing. Most distinctly, the complete lack of student attendance was staggering. When one notes the origins and execution of the trial, however, perhaps this is not all too surprising.

By my count, the total amount of people in the trial room, including the three sitting Judiciary members, members of the media and Union representatives never exceeded 20. A trial of a sitting representative should have generated explosive and constant student attention. The question of whether Union Secretary Michael Goldman '08 would be impeached or remain in office should have been on everyone's lips. Enormous student movements should have been formed expressing support, or opposition to the legal actions taken. Instead, there was absolutely nothing.

This reveals a lot about the basis for this extremely artificial trial. Instead of coming in response to student agitation and demand, this trial was pushed for from the top down. At a Brandeis Democrats and Brandeis for Barack-sponsored viewing of a Democratic debate a few weeks ago, Village Senator Michael Kerns '09 went out of his way to solicit students to file the UJ lawsuit. Several students, myself included, signed on to a listserv to which Kerns sent out a copy of the lawsuit he wanted students to file and essentially take ownership of. Student concerns weren't factored into this suit. This process was akin to telling students what harms they should be feeling. He had originally intended for multiple students to sign on to the suit, but he went along with the lawsuit under the name of a single student, Rivka Maizlish '10.

The genesis of this case should reveal all we need to know about it. In an attempt to combat an impeachment-worthy and unconstitutional offense, Kerns and other Union officials covertly crafted the case and searched for figurehead student representation. In secret, and without true public discourse, a trial was born. Just as a behind- closed-doors session produced the Goldman censure, a trial that should have been a publicly launched endeavor became part of a backroom maneuver.

Several other things about this trial were revealing. It was troubling indeed to see that Student Union President Shreeya Sinha '09 wasn't in attendance. Her absence can only reinforce rumors of the high level of politization in this censure and trial. When a Union officer, a member of her Executive Board no less, is on trial, Sinha should be the first to arrive. Whatever her personal feeling for Goldman, Sinha's absence spoke volumes. Just as I was appalled by University President Reinharz's absence at the Jimmy Carter event last fall, I felt betrayed by our student-elected leader. If there is a retrial, as now seems likely, I hope she will attend.

Other distinctly disturbing features of the trial included the heavy involvement of alumni. While former students often tend to be a part of campus life years after they graduate, it was quite alarming to see them play a greater role in this trial than current students. Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer was absolutely correct in pushing for a reduction of alumni involvement in the trial. As important as UJ cases are, they also in some ways serve for legal and judicial training for current students. Many Justices aspire to attend law school. Having former students and current law school students working to file briefs will ensure a more powerful case, but won't assist our students in any profound manner. Their involvement pushed this case further from the view of current students.

Watching my first UJ trial, I was also quite disturbed by how unapproachable the UJ proceedings are for students not involved heavily in Mock Trial or other speech-related clubs and programs. Simply put, Kerns was unable to get in most of his questions or evidence because of the exceptional legal skill of his defense counsel, Senator for the Charles River Apartments Rachel Graham Kagan '09. Just as with the process itself, a lot more can and should be done to make the trial itself more accessible to students without a legal background.

The adversarial discovery process of our legal system works well when both sides of counsel are equal in that they at least have graduated law school and passed the bar exam. In undergraduate courtrooms, the adversarial process can be daunting and insurmountable. We should begin a serious campus discussion about the manner and shape our judiciary trials should take.

Even though the court released its opinion last night and found Goldman's actions unconstitutional, there could be no catharsis. The muddled process had rendered the decision meaningless. In this case, the Union Judiciary was able to wade through the legal motions and come to a correct verdict, but how much trust can we have in the process itself?

A trial filled with motions and petitions filed by alumni currently in law schools, a case written up and advocated for by Union officials rather than pushed for by students and the absence of leadership in our elected officials, all contributed to turning what was hailed as the Brandeis trial of the century into a mangled mess.

[The original article originally incorrectly stated that the Democratic Debate Watching Event was sponsored by Democracy For America. It was in fact sponsored by Brandeis Democrats and Brandeis For Barack]