I'm a prosector and I STILL don't understand this.....

Donate To GopherHole
C

cheeseheadgophfan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,094
Reaction score
1,692
Points
113
Let me start by saying I'm taking a lot of my information off of the internet and from Gopherhole, so that might be my first mistake. However, if what I have read is correct, the following aspects of this make NO sense:

1. IF the accuser plead the 5th at the ROR hearing, she clearly was concerned (along with her attorney) that the answers to questions asked of her could implicate her in a criminal charge. That means perjury or obstruction. That means that there are aspects of her SWORN statement which are not truthful (not just that she couldn't remember, or that she was mistaken) but she intentionally lied on her statement. That's a really big deal. In 10 years as a prosecutor, I don't believe I've ever seen that. This puts her credibility really in question.

2. IF (as I've read) part of the settlement of the ROR, both parties agreed to stay away from each other and the players agreed NOT to file civil lawsuits against the accuser, this is INCREDIBLY rare. There was obviously concern from the accuser (and her attorney) that there may be a basis for a civil suit. It was obviously her (and her attorney's) idea to place this in the settlement. Both of these things are admissible in a criminal trial as consciousness of guilt evidence and again, puts her credibility at issue.

3. It's my understanding that none of the players were even arrested. The burden of proof for arrest is probable cause. The prosecutor didn't even believe they could meet that low threshold. Between the statement of the victim and the SANE exam, this burden is really low. If she was forcibly part of a gang rape, the SANE exam would show evidence of this......

4. While this is not part of the legal system, to (allegedly) be suspending players for being at the residence is ridiculous. Djam's encounter was deemed consensual. Is this committee going to start investigating the consensual sex lives of non
 

Let me start by saying I'm taking a lot of my information off of the internet and from Gopherhole, so that might be my first mistake. However, if what I have read is correct, the following aspects of this make NO sense:

1. IF the accuser plead the 5th at the ROR hearing, she clearly was concerned (along with her attorney) that the answers to questions asked of her could implicate her in a criminal charge. That means perjury or obstruction. That means that there are aspects of her SWORN statement which are not truthful (not just that she couldn't remember, or that she was mistaken) but she intentionally lied on her statement. That's a really big deal. In 10 years as a prosecutor, I don't believe I've ever seen that. This puts her credibility really in question.

2. IF (as I've read) part of the settlement of the ROR, both parties agreed to stay away from each other and the players agreed NOT to file civil lawsuits against the accuser, this is INCREDIBLY rare. There was obviously concern from the accuser (and her attorney) that there may be a basis for a civil suit. It was obviously her (and her attorney's) idea to place this in the settlement. Both of these things are admissible in a criminal trial as consciousness of guilt evidence and again, puts her credibility at issue.

3. It's my understanding that none of the players were even arrested. The burden of proof for arrest is probable cause. The prosecutor didn't even believe they could meet that low threshold. Between the statement of the victim and the SANE exam, this burden is really low. If she was forcibly part of a gang rape, the SANE exam would show evidence of this......

4. While this is not part of the legal system, to (allegedly) be suspending players for being at the residence is ridiculous. Djam's encounter was deemed consensual. Is this committee going to start investigating the consensual sex lives of non-athletes at the U? Slippery slope here folks.

5. Finally, what ever happened to time served and timely justice? Some of these players have already sat out three games for what is non-criminal conduct. Does that count for nothing? I can't believe this committee can sit back while the alleged perpetrators are suspended, than reinstated and than try to suspend them (and others) for the bowl game? Double jeopardy, anyone?

I don't blame the players one bit for boycotting. In the end, this could set this program back decades (insert joke here). All of this for what has been deemed by professionals to be non-criminal conduct. Sad.

I'm betting the alleged victim is none too happy about this being brought up again. There is going to be no prosecution criminally, and her version of these events is going to be scrutinized. Some of these players didn't agree not to sue her. Stay tuned.
 


cheeseheadgophfan said:
Let me start by saying I'm taking a lot of my information off of the internet and from Gopherhole, so that might be my first mistake. However, if what I have read is correct, the following aspects of this make NO sense:

1. IF the accuser plead the 5th at the ROR hearing, she clearly was concerned (along with her attorney) that the answers to questions asked of her could implicate her in a criminal charge. That means perjury or obstruction. That means that there are aspects of her SWORN statement which are not truthful (not just that she couldn't remember, or that she was mistaken) but she intentionally lied on her statement. That's a really big deal. In 10 years as a prosecutor, I don't believe I've ever seen that. This puts her credibility really in question.

2. IF (as I've read) part of the settlement of the ROR, both parties agreed to stay away from each other and the players agreed NOT to file civil lawsuits against the accuser, this is INCREDIBLY rare. There was obviously concern from the accuser (and her attorney) that there may be a basis for a civil suit. It was obviously her (and her attorney's) idea to place this in the settlement. Both of these things are admissible in a criminal trial as consciousness of guilt evidence and again, puts her credibility at issue.

3. It's my understanding that none of the players were even arrested. The burden of proof for arrest is probable cause. The prosecutor didn't even believe they could meet that low threshold. Between the statement of the victim and the SANE exam, this burden is really low. If she was forcibly part of a gang rape, the SANE exam would show evidence of this......

4. While this is not part of the legal system, to (allegedly) be suspending players for being at the residence is ridiculous. Djam's encounter was deemed consensual. Is this committee going to start investigating the consensual sex lives of non-athletes at the U? Slippery slope here folks.

5. Finally, what ever happened to time served and timely justice? Some of these players have already sat out three games for what is non-criminal conduct. Does that count for nothing? I can't believe this committee can sit back while the alleged perpetrators are suspended, than reinstated and than try to suspend them (and others) for the bowl game? Double jeopardy, anyone?

I don't blame the players one bit for boycotting. In the end, this could set this program back decades (insert joke here). All of this for what has been deemed by professionals to be non-criminal conduct. Sad.

I'm betting the alleged victim is none too happy about this being brought up again. There is going to be no prosecution criminally, and her version of these events is going to be scrutinized. Some of these players didn't agree not to sue her. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
 

Big Picture

cheeseheadgophfan said:
Let me start by saying I'm taking a lot of my information off of the internet and from Gopherhole, so that might be my first mistake. However, if what I have read is correct, the following aspects of this make NO sense:

1. IF the accuser plead the 5th at the ROR hearing, she clearly was concerned (along with her attorney) that the answers to questions asked of her could implicate her in a criminal charge. That means perjury or obstruction. That means that there are aspects of her SWORN statement which are not truthful (not just that she couldn't remember, or that she was mistaken) but she intentionally lied on her statement. That's a really big deal. In 10 years as a prosecutor, I don't believe I've ever seen that. This puts her credibility really in question.

2. IF (as I've read) part of the settlement of the ROR, both parties agreed to stay away from each other and the players agreed NOT to file civil lawsuits against the accuser, this is INCREDIBLY rare. There was obviously concern from the accuser (and her attorney) that there may be a basis for a civil suit. It was obviously her (and her attorney's) idea to place this in the settlement. Both of these things are admissible in a criminal trial as consciousness of guilt evidence and again, puts her credibility at issue.

3. It's my understanding that none of the players were even arrested. The burden of proof for arrest is probable cause. The prosecutor didn't even believe they could meet that low threshold. Between the statement of the victim and the SANE exam, this burden is really low. If she was forcibly part of a gang rape, the SANE exam would show evidence of this......

4. While this is not part of the legal system, to (allegedly) be suspending players for being at the residence is ridiculous. Djam's encounter was deemed consensual. Is this committee going to start investigating the consensual sex lives of non-athletes at the U? Slippery slope here folks.

5. Finally, what ever happened to time served and timely justice? Some of these players have already sat out three games for what is non-criminal conduct. Does that count for nothing? I can't believe this committee can sit back while the alleged perpetrators are suspended, than reinstated and than try to suspend them (and others) for the bowl game? Double jeopardy, anyone?

I don't blame the players one bit for boycotting. In the end, this could set this program back decades (insert joke here). All of this for what has been deemed by professionals to be non-criminal conduct. Sad.

I'm betting the alleged victim is none too happy about this being brought up again. There is going to be no prosecution criminally, and her version of these events is going to be scrutinized. Some of these players didn't agree not to sue her. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Really good post! I tend to mostly agree.

First, let me say that none of us really knows all the facts or evidence here. That said, here are my big picture comments:

You are looking at this through a legal lens. There is a huge amount of political pressure on universities right now to investigate sexual assaults under their student conduct codes. That's what happened here. It was investigated by the police and the Henn County Attorney's office and determined insufficient evidence to arrest players and bring charges. The U still had an opportunity to investigate and went ahead with that process through its EOAA office.

The U doesn't have to meet the same hurdles in its internal process that the legal system does. The EEOA's standard is something along the lines of the idea that "more likely than not" a violation took place. That's grounds for punishment in the student conduct world. This case is showing the ugly warts of an extrajudicial system of punishing students for alleged wrongdoing.

I'm growing increasingly wary of this process. For academic issues or minor issues that could better be handled outside of the legal system, it probably is appropriate. For serious crimes like sexual assault, I guess I'd rather see the process go forward more transparently in the legal system.
 


Also an attorney but private practice.

The problem is the arrogance of the U, their extra judicial process, and Title IX.

It is very damning that the cops didn't think Probable Cause existed. The burden for Probable Cause is lower than the burden for the U's extra judicial process.

This is a witch hunt folks. Do not let the U get away with this. Make sure the EOAA is taken to task.
 

Your understanding is a good, as anyone's not directly involved, given the scenario that you laid out, the U is still moving forward to discipline the players. It seems that there is this underlying bias against men in a vast majority of Title IX investigations. This may be the beginning of push back against Title IX excesses in general, but it's shaping up to be a nasty fight, I fully expect this will go to trial.
 

cheeseheadgophfan said:
Let me start by saying I'm taking a lot of my information off of the internet and from Gopherhole, so that might be my first mistake. However, if what I have read is correct, the following aspects of this make NO sense:

1. IF the accuser plead the 5th at the ROR hearing, she clearly was concerned (along with her attorney) that the answers to questions asked of her could implicate her in a criminal charge. That means perjury or obstruction. That means that there are aspects of her SWORN statement which are not truthful (not just that she couldn't remember, or that she was mistaken) but she intentionally lied on her statement. That's a really big deal. In 10 years as a prosecutor, I don't believe I've ever seen that. This puts her credibility really in question.

2. IF (as I've read) part of the settlement of the ROR, both parties agreed to stay away from each other and the players agreed NOT to file civil lawsuits against the accuser, this is INCREDIBLY rare. There was obviously concern from the accuser (and her attorney) that there may be a basis for a civil suit. It was obviously her (and her attorney's) idea to place this in the settlement. Both of these things are admissible in a criminal trial as consciousness of guilt evidence and again, puts her credibility at issue.

3. It's my understanding that none of the players were even arrested. The burden of proof for arrest is probable cause. The prosecutor didn't even believe they could meet that low threshold. Between the statement of the victim and the SANE exam, this burden is really low. If she was forcibly part of a gang rape, the SANE exam would show evidence of this......

4. While this is not part of the legal system, to (allegedly) be suspending players for being at the residence is ridiculous. Djam's encounter was deemed consensual. Is this committee going to start investigating the consensual sex lives of non-athletes at the U? Slippery slope here folks.

5. Finally, what ever happened to time served and timely justice? Some of these players have already sat out three games for what is non-criminal conduct. Does that count for nothing? I can't believe this committee can sit back while the alleged perpetrators are suspended, than reinstated and than try to suspend them (and others) for the bowl game? Double jeopardy, anyone?

I don't blame the players one bit for boycotting. In the end, this could set this program back decades (insert joke here). All of this for what has been deemed by professionals to be non-criminal conduct. Sad.

I'm betting the alleged victim is none too happy about this being brought up again. There is going to be no prosecution criminally, and her version of these events is going to be scrutinized. Some of these players didn't agree not to sue her. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

I think that you largely have this correct. As to point number two, I believe that there were threats of litigation from the attorney for the players, so the inclusion of that provision may have arisen from that.
 

year of the gopher said:
EDIT: Really good post! I tend to mostly agree.

First, let me say that none of us really knows all the facts or evidence here. That said, here are my big picture comments:

You are looking at this through a legal lens. There is a huge amount of political pressure on universities right now to investigate sexual assaults under their student conduct codes. That's what happened here. It was investigated by the police and the Henn County Attorney's office and determined insufficient evidence to arrest players and bring charges.

The U doesn't have to meet the same hurdles in its internal process that the legal system does. The EEOA's standard is something along the lines of the idea that "more likely than not" a violation took place. That's grounds for punishment in the student conduct world. This case is showing the ugly warts of an extrajudicial system of punishing students for alleged wrongdoing.

I'm growing increasingly wary of this process. For academic issues or minor issues that could better be handled outside of the legal system, it probably is appropriate. For serious crimes like sexual assault, I guess I'd rather see the process go forward more transparently in the legal system.
Click to expand...

Probable Cause to arrest is a lower burden or threshold to meet than Preponderance of the Evidence, which is the more-likely-than-not standard that you are referring to.

Trained law enforcement believes Probable Cause's burden cannot be met, which is easy to meet.

Untrained university bureaucrats claim Preponderance of the Evidence against the players.

Who would you trust?
 



Gopherguy0723 said:
Probable Cause to arrest is a burden or threshold to meet than Preponderance of the Evidence, which is the more-likely-than-not standrard you are referring to.

Trained law enforcement believes Probable Cause's burden cannot be met, which is easy to meet.

Untrained university bureaucrats claim Preponderance of the Evidence against the players.

Who would you trust?
Click to expand...

I agree.
 

It all begs the ultimate question, why do we need an additional quasi-judicial process that operates under secrecy with inconsistent procedure and outside the bounds of our accepted ideas of Due Process?

The answer is the same as it has been throughout history when groups, government and otherwise, set up these types of bodies. The goal of a system like our criminal justice system is to do the utmost to determine truth. That is not the point of an EOAA investigation. That is why it needs different or sometimes no rules at all when appropriate.
 

With a daughter working at a University out west. the School can have higher expectations and only have to have a 51% probability that something happened

said differently less proof needs to be there for them to come to a conclusion to apply a punishment to any students

however there is a due process and one should be given a meeting to be hear of the accused allegations.

To me this sounds a lot like they are not looking at things from both sides and yes SEX was preformed that night and multiple time is my guess. But this seems to be a lot of punishment for something that if you walk down any residential hall over the weekend you will hear moaning of good times

if the Law thinks that the sex was consensual and the U doesn't that seems like a pretty hard thing for anyone to agree with (if more video or if someone can tell a different story then of course we are all on the side of the truth and justice. if a girl says no or stop then it needs to be that way)
 

WoodburyTim said:
It all begs the ultimate question, why do we need an additional quasi-judicial process that operates under secrecy with inconsistent procedure and outside the bounds of our accepted ideas of Due Process?

The answer is the same as it has been throughout history when groups, government and otherwise, set up these types of bodies. The goal of a system like our criminal justice system is to do the utmost to determine truth. That is not the point of an EOAA investigation. That is why it needs different or sometimes no rules at all when appropriate.
Click to expand...

When you sign up for something you agree to follow the Code of Conduct/Rules that organization has. It's no different then the NCAA, MSHSL, Girl Scouts, Church, Softball League, etc. etc. Break the code/rules and you are at the discretion of the organizations discipline team. Now laws are broken, but you broke the code.
 



Outstanding posts....witch hunt is exactly what this is. The stain that has been made will not be wiped away easily, if ever. If I was one of the suspended players I would certainly be looking for legal representation in regards to a defamation of character lawsuit against the U. I worked several years for one of the Regents on the Board (Michael Hsu) and I have faith in him to help steer this program as far away from this **** storm as quickly as possible. If you were a parent of a HS athlete looking at colleges, would you even consider the U of M? Hell no...and rightfully so based on the utter incompetence of the Administration.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
The problem is the arrogance of the U, their extra judicial process, and Title IX.
Click to expand...

Let's add one more element. Secrecy. Behind closed doors what can't you do? So if there is a screw up or a bad policy, nobody knows except those inside it. Can't fix it if nobody can see it.

We kinda avoid secret trails and etc for a good reason in this country.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
When you sign up for something you agree to follow the Code of Conduct/Rules that organization has. It's no different then the NCAA, MSHSL, Girl Scouts, Church, Softball League, etc. etc. Break the code/rules and you are at the discretion of the organizations discipline team. Now laws are broken, but you broke the code.
Click to expand...

This is true, but if the process by which the organization determines who is in compliance with their Code and who isn't, isn't transparent or against the fundamentals of fairness then that organization better be prepared that a smaller number of people will join or support their organization.

The other factor that might end coming into play here is that a school or organization can have a code of conduct, but if they are enforcing differently based on a factor like race then it becomes a legal question. I have no idea if that is the case here, but from Hutton's tone earlier in this deal it darn well is going to be part of the discussion here.
 

IMHO, The over-reaching power of the EOAA is draconian.

I don't blame the players for standing together. Some of the players are being punished twice. If sex was consensual, and no criminal charges were levied, or players arrested why the over-zealousness to set an example by destroying the lives of eleven people including the woman?

The fear of the Title IX law puts universities in a tight spot for fear of losing federal funding. So, it is easier to throw students, athletes, and coaches under the bus than face the wrath of Title IX.

If they are going to suspend the additional players for a year, they better suspend all the people that were at the party. They are making an example of football players to change the football culture by tramping on the players' lives.

Wouldn't it be easier to have the mandatory annual, bi-annual review of the student Code Of Ethics in person like what large corporations do regularly than to be reactive and wait until it becomes a major crisis?

This is Mark Coyle's and other administrator's job. Instead of being a paper shuffle AD, he better be out and about talking and meeting players, students, and coaches on a regular basis. Beth Goetz was really good at that and paid close attention to players' progress and needs.

Heck, even Jerry Kill was always in the public eye selling the U to the community and to the students.

I once had a senior director who was a balance budget guy. He penny pinched, sat in his office and go to meetings. He never even visited our work areas. He cost us a lot more money in the end and time figuring out work-arounds. The end result is we lost track of our goals he ended up getting fired.

To change the culture, Mark Coyle has to be engaged regularly out in the open.

I don't know that I can say I am impressed with his style.
 

There's other things in her story that I question, after six shots she is walking around seemingly coherent not slurring words, able to walk and move around freely, she may have a very high tolerance but I would be chained to my toilet if I did that.

People were in the room forcing her down, cheering it on, it would have to be 10 monsters, most who only participated in that way, I highly doubt that happened, doesn't make any sense to me.
 

cheeseheadgophfan said:
Let me start by saying I'm taking a lot of my information off of the internet and from Gopherhole, so that might be my first mistake. However, if what I have read is correct, the following aspects of this make NO sense:

1. IF the accuser plead the 5th at the ROR hearing, she clearly was concerned (along with her attorney) that the answers to questions asked of her could implicate her in a criminal charge. That means perjury or obstruction. That means that there are aspects of her SWORN statement which are not truthful (not just that she couldn't remember, or that she was mistaken) but she intentionally lied on her statement. That's a really big deal. In 10 years as a prosecutor, I don't believe I've ever seen that. This puts her credibility really in question.

2. IF (as I've read) part of the settlement of the ROR, both parties agreed to stay away from each other and the players agreed NOT to file civil lawsuits against the accuser, this is INCREDIBLY rare. There was obviously concern from the accuser (and her attorney) that there may be a basis for a civil suit. It was obviously her (and her attorney's) idea to place this in the settlement. Both of these things are admissible in a criminal trial as consciousness of guilt evidence and again, puts her credibility at issue.

3. It's my understanding that none of the players were even arrested. The burden of proof for arrest is probable cause. The prosecutor didn't even believe they could meet that low threshold. Between the statement of the victim and the SANE exam, this burden is really low. If she was forcibly part of a gang rape, the SANE exam would show evidence of this......

4. While this is not part of the legal system, to (allegedly) be suspending players for being at the residence is ridiculous. Djam's encounter was deemed consensual. Is this committee going to start investigating the consensual sex lives of non-athletes at the U? Slippery slope here folks.

5. Finally, what ever happened to time served and timely justice? Some of these players have already sat out three games for what is non-criminal conduct. Does that count for nothing? I can't believe this committee can sit back while the alleged perpetrators are suspended, than reinstated and than try to suspend them (and others) for the bowl game? Double jeopardy, anyone?

I don't blame the players one bit for boycotting. In the end, this could set this program back decades (insert joke here). All of this for what has been deemed by professionals to be non-criminal conduct. Sad.

I'm betting the alleged victim is none too happy about this being brought up again. There is going to be no prosecution criminally, and her version of these events is going to be scrutinized. Some of these players didn't agree not to sue her. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to post this excellent perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

WoodburyTim said:
It all begs the ultimate question, why do we need an additional quasi-judicial process that operates under secrecy with inconsistent procedure and outside the bounds of our accepted ideas of Due Process?

The answer is the same as it has been throughout history when groups, government and otherwise, set up these types of bodies. The goal of a system like our criminal justice system is to do the utmost to determine truth. That is not the point of an EOAA investigation. That is why it needs different or sometimes no rules at all when appropriate.
Click to expand...

It's possible for something to be wrong, but not be illegal. Have you ever punished your kids, or do you leave it up to the criminal justice system to decide? If kids cheat on an exam at school do you think their grade should count because the local DA didn't indict? I have no idea what really happened, but arguing that the legal standard is the only applicable one is curious.

I think that there's a lot that smells fishy about this whole deal, but in general the broader the conclusion you're drawing from a particular incident, the more likely it is that your conclusion is faulty.
 

cheeseheadgophfan said:
Let me start by saying I'm taking a lot of my information off of the internet and from Gopherhole, so that might be my first mistake. However, if what I have read is correct, the following aspects of this make NO sense:

1. IF the accuser plead the 5th at the ROR hearing, she clearly was concerned (along with her attorney) that the answers to questions asked of her could implicate her in a criminal charge. That means perjury or obstruction. That means that there are aspects of her SWORN statement which are not truthful (not just that she couldn't remember, or that she was mistaken) but she intentionally lied on her statement. That's a really big deal. In 10 years as a prosecutor, I don't believe I've ever seen that. This puts her credibility really in question.

2. IF (as I've read) part of the settlement of the ROR, both parties agreed to stay away from each other and the players agreed NOT to file civil lawsuits against the accuser, this is INCREDIBLY rare. There was obviously concern from the accuser (and her attorney) that there may be a basis for a civil suit. It was obviously her (and her attorney's) idea to place this in the settlement. Both of these things are admissible in a criminal trial as consciousness of guilt evidence and again, puts her credibility at issue.

3. It's my understanding that none of the players were even arrested. The burden of proof for arrest is probable cause. The prosecutor didn't even believe they could meet that low threshold. Between the statement of the victim and the SANE exam, this burden is really low. If she was forcibly part of a gang rape, the SANE exam would show evidence of this......

4. While this is not part of the legal system, to (allegedly) be suspending players for being at the residence is ridiculous. Djam's encounter was deemed consensual. Is this committee going to start investigating the consensual sex lives of non-athletes at the U? Slippery slope here folks.

5. Finally, what ever happened to time served and timely justice? Some of these players have already sat out three games for what is non-criminal conduct. Does that count for nothing? I can't believe this committee can sit back while the alleged perpetrators are suspended, than reinstated and than try to suspend them (and others) for the bowl game? Double jeopardy, anyone?

I don't blame the players one bit for boycotting. In the end, this could set this program back decades (insert joke here). All of this for what has been deemed by professionals to be non-criminal conduct. Sad.

I'm betting the alleged victim is none too happy about this being brought up again. There is going to be no prosecution criminally, and her version of these events is going to be scrutinized. Some of these players didn't agree not to sue her. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that pleading the 5th is a constitutionally protected right,that is not an admission of guilt.

You assume that the act was consensual, it may have been, however it is not a given. Certainly, these committees investigate sexual assaults of non-student athletes. The University's code of conduct requires a certain standard of behavior beyond the law.

Timely justice? In our legal system cases sometimes drag on for years.You think from October to December is an unusually long time frame? For an organization with over 50,000 students?

We don't know what evidence the U is working off of. I certainly think it is possible that this committee is wrong,that they are making a big mistake. But the committees decisions could be based on things that happened after the assault. Maybe a coverup? Maybe lying to investigators?

And about your analysis in number 3. I am curious, what percentage of sexual assault reports that are filed does your office actually prosecute?
 

WoodburyTim said:
This is true, but if the process by which the organization determines who is in compliance with their Code and who isn't, isn't transparent or against the fundamentals of fairness then that organization better be prepared that a smaller number of people will join or support their organization.

The other factor that might end coming into play here is that a school or organization can have a code of conduct, but if they are enforcing differently based on a factor like race then it becomes a legal question. I have no idea if that is the case here, but from Hutton's tone earlier in this deal it darn well is going to be part of the discussion here.
Click to expand...

Spot on...this drifts pretty quickly into the legal arena, and the U administration had better be ready to be transparent in court.
 

It is a constitutional right but why would anyone ever utilize that right if they didn't have something to hide.

Let's flip it around and pretend the players utilize their ability to plead the 5th, what does that imply to you?
 

justthefacts said:
It's possible for something to be wrong, but not be illegal. Have you ever punished your kids, or do you leave it up to the criminal justice system to decide? If kids cheat on an exam at school do you think their grade should count because the local DA didn't indict? I have no idea what really happened, but arguing that the legal standard is the only applicable one is curious.

I think that there's a lot that smells fishy about this whole deal, but in general the broader the conclusion you're drawing from a particular incident, the more likely it is that your conclusion is faulty.
Click to expand...

The parenting argument versus a University's expulsions process is about as flawed as possible, but I'll give it a try. Let's say that the law did in fact investigate cheating on school tests and they through a defined and established investigation determined that my child did not in fact cheat that determination would carry alot of weight with me. Using your analogy it seems you are proposing that I instead conduct a subsequent investigation, where I would use an entirely different process. Maybe not even ask my child what happened? Use some of the available evidence, but not all of it. And then ultimately tell my kid that they are grounded and that they will have a chance to tell their side of the story in 3 to 4 months. But until that time they will be grounded.

And as to the first point I absolutely agree and in terms of my personal morals I suspect that these players did something "wrong." But that is not the question here because I, you, UpNorth, Spoofin, and every other poster here probably have slightly different ideas of "wrong" but despite our different ideas we all agree in principle to live and abide by the laws of this state and country. Those laws like them or not are clearly established and if we don't like them or how they are enforced, we have the ability to elect representatives who can change them. Whereas we don't know what the process is for how the EOAA reached it's conclusion or who even conducted the investigation.
 

cjcarter8 said:
It is a constitutional right but why would anyone ever utilize that right if they didn't have something to hide.

Let's flip it around and pretend the players utilize their ability to plead the 5th, what does that imply to you?
Click to expand...

We need not tarry long to reiterate our view that, as the two courts below held, no implication of guilt could be drawn from Halperin's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege before the grand jury. Recent re-examination of the history and meaning of the Fifth Amendment has emphasized anew that one of the basic functions of the privilege is to protect innocent men. Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today, 9-30, 53-82. "Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege." Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 426 . See also Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U.S. 551 , when, at the same Term, this Court said at pp. 557-558: "The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."

When we pass to the issue of credibility, we deem it evident that Halperin's claim of the Fifth Amendment privilege before the Brooklyn grand jury in response to questions which he answered at the trial was wholly consistent with innocence.
 

If nothing else I hope the players file a civil rights lawsuit or take other legal actions against the EOAA.

We need to litigate in the public square the procedures and policies of this group.
 

cjcarter8 said:
It is a constitutional right but why would anyone ever utilize that right if they didn't have something to hide.

Let's flip it around and pretend the players utilize their ability to plead the 5th, what does that imply to you?
Click to expand...

She plead the 5th at a restraining order hearing. She had not been charged with a crime. Do you not see the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Gogogopher said:
I was under the impression that pleading the 5th is a constitutionally protected right,that is not an admission of guilt.

You assume that the act was consensual, it may have been, however it is not a given. Certainly, these committees investigate sexual assaults of non-student athletes. The University's code of conduct requires a certain standard of behavior beyond the law.

Timely justice? In our legal system cases sometimes drag on for years.You think from October to December is an unusually long time frame? For an organization with over 50,000 students?

We don't know what evidence the U is working off of. I certainly think it is possible that this committee is wrong,that they are making a big mistake. But the committees decisions could be based on things that happened after the assault. Maybe a coverup? Maybe lying to investigators?

And about your analysis in number 3. I am curious, what percentage of sexual assault reports that are filed does your office actually prosecute?
Click to expand...

I doubt the code of conduct says in writing "no 5-somes." I like the rest of you don't know what happened, but the OP brought up great points that steer things away from "sexual assault" that is for sure. If the U deems having unusual sex outside of 2 people performing it together as "sexual assault" than that should be in writing in the code of conduct similar to the section about cheating academically is in there. You can't just say someone violated the code of conduct because you don't agree with the way they acted sexually. Again, this is all assuming there is no new evidence.
 

cheeseheadgophfan said:
She plead the 5th at a restraining order hearing. This type of hearing is civil. She had not been charged with a crime. She (on legal advice) was concerned about being charged. Do you not see the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

westcoastgopher11 said:
If nothing else I hope the players file a civil rights lawsuit or take other legal actions against the EOAA.

We need to litigate in the public square the procedures and policies of this group.
Click to expand...

Assuming the particulars of this case warrant it, I agree. This is not the last time this is going to come up, no matter how much we'd like it to be. And having an unaccountable, semi-anonymous board able to levy this level of punishment is not OK IMO.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom