She also argued that because it has been the first instance in many years that Law School students were involved in a sit-in, their punishment should be less severe. A precedent, she argued, that was established by the registrar after the 1992 sit-in.

Fitzpatrick attacked the statement of rights and responsibilities as vague, saying “it would not survive constitutional scrutiny.”

He also attacked what he called the “hurried nature of these proceedings.”

The students say they only had one week to prepare for yesterday’s formal hearing, in which charges that they say are broad and vague were heard.

The students did not know until 24 hours before the hearing that members of the administrative staff of Mass. Hall would be testifying against them.

Bartley said that the defense team would have spoken with staff at Mass. Hall if they had known more than one day in advance that Katz would be calling assistants to testify.

“The manner in which the evidence was gathered helped to determine the outcome,” Bartley said after the hearing.

The members of the defense team had a number of complaints about Katz and the role she played in the hearing.