All Things Gopher Players Appeals Process

Donate To GopherHole

cjcarter8 said:
Why's that? I'm not following.
Click to expand...

Innocence shouldn't have to be proven. It is a constitutional right that you are innocent and the guilt must be proven. That is the problem everyone has had with this whole process.
 

bottlebass said:
Innocence shouldn't have to be proven. It is a constitutional right that you are innocent and the guilt must be proven. That is the problem everyone has had with this whole process.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I thought maybe that's where you were going. I'll change it to defend their innocence.
 

Might as well have them wear muzzles and shackles

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

cjcarter8 said:
Sorry. It's my understanding that the accused players can't introduce any evidence that the accuser doesn't agree to include in the hearing. For example, the videotape.

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Also, thinking further about the introduction of the expert on the mental side of the assault. That expert literally destroys any behavioral evidence the players' attorneys may try to introduce. The panel will potentially have in the back of their mind "She just experienced a traumatic event, she wasn't thinking right."

Finally, after saying all this I feel it necessary to say, I'm all for the guilty being punished but they need a fair shot to prove their innocence first.
Click to expand...

In that specific example, she is on the video so I would assume her approval would be needed to actually show it. Nothing stops the accused lawyers from presenting material (police report) or expert witnesses who can describe what is on the video.

Pretty sure the accused lawyers prepared to counter an expert like this...and challenge their opinions.

There has been hundreds of posts outlining the bias in this process against the accused, whatever the situation. Much scrutiny will follow this outcome. I anticipate the BoR will suggest a full review of the process. If that happens, Kaler will be in a very tough spot...or should I say a much, much tougher spot.
 


GopherWeatherGuy said:
I call out anyone who posts misinformation on any subject. No one has a problem with that unless I'm defending the made up stuff that's posted on here about Coyle. Then the same handful of Claeys apologists come calling.

Coyle had very little say over the situation.

Blind.
Click to expand...

You have no idea how much "say" he had.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

cjcarter8 said:
Sorry. It's my understanding that the accused players can't introduce any evidence that the accuser doesn't agree to include in the hearing. For example, the videotape.

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Also, thinking further about the introduction of the expert on the mental side of the assault. That expert literally destroys any behavioral evidence the players' attorneys may try to introduce. The panel will potentially have in the back of their mind "She just experienced a traumatic event, she wasn't thinking right."

Finally, after saying all this I feel it necessary to say, I'm all for the guilty being punished but they need a fair shot to prove their innocence first.
Click to expand...

"Each party may offer reliable information relevant to the issue and may object to the
information offered by the other party. The Panel Chair and the Panel have discretion to
determine what information should fairly be included or excluded.

The parties may also introduce relevant written documents, objects, films, or other materials as
exhibits. Each party is responsible for bringing copies of written materials in sufficient number
for distribution to Panel members and the opposing party at the hearing. "

From the end of part G in http://usenate.umn.edu/ssms/ssmsprocedures.pdf

I do remember hearing some stuff about the videotape, but I believe that only applied to whether it was furnished for the EOAA report. According to the above passage from SSMC Hearing Procedures the video should be allowed unless the accuser challenges it and can provide a good reason it should not be viewed by the committee.
 

bizzle22 said:
"Each party may offer reliable information relevant to the issue and may object to the
information offered by the other party. The Panel Chair and the Panel have discretion to
determine what information should fairly be included or excluded.

The parties may also introduce relevant written documents, objects, films, or other materials as
exhibits. Each party is responsible for bringing copies of written materials in sufficient number
for distribution to Panel members and the opposing party at the hearing. "

From the end of part G in http://usenate.umn.edu/ssms/ssmsprocedures.pdf

I do remember hearing some stuff about the videotape, but I believe that only applied to whether it was furnished for the EOAA report. According to the above passage from SSMC Hearing Procedures the video should be allowed unless the accuser challenges it and can provide a good reason it should not be viewed by the committee.
Click to expand...

You'd think it would be relevant but the University has already decided otherwise:

Pacyga also says the panel will not be allowed to review key evidence during the hearings, including a 90-second video that showed what police and the university determined was consensual sex between the reporting student and a football player.

University documents, the Student Sexual Misconduct Subcommittee stated the evidence will not be allowed because whether the student had consensual sexual contact with certain individuals “is irrelevant to whether there was consent with other accused students.”

Source is on page 14

or on the next post :)
 

cjcarter8 said:
Sorry. It's my understanding that the accused players can't introduce any evidence that the accuser doesn't agree to include in the hearing. For example, the videotape.

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Also, thinking further about the introduction of the expert on the mental side of the assault. That expert literally destroys any behavioral evidence the players' attorneys may try to introduce. The panel will potentially have in the back of their mind "She just experienced a traumatic event, she wasn't thinking right."

Finally, after saying all this I feel it necessary to say, I'm all for the guilty being punished but they need a fair shot to defend their innocence first.
Click to expand...

Following up because I just remembered reading this article this morning. Pertaining to the videotape specifically:

"Pacyga also says the panel will not be allowed to review key evidence during the hearings, including a 90-second video that showed what police and the university determined was consensual sex between the reporting student and a football player.

In university documents, the Student Sexual Misconduct Subcommittee stated the evidence will not be allowed because whether the student had consensual sexual contact with certain individuals “is irrelevant to whether there was consent with other accused students.”

http://kstp.com/news/appeal-hearing...layers-university-of-minnesota/4381305/?cat=1
 



bizzle22 said:
"Each party may offer reliable information relevant to the issue and may object to the
information offered by the other party. The Panel Chair and the Panel have discretion to
determine what information should fairly be included or excluded.

The parties may also introduce relevant written documents, objects, films, or other materials as
exhibits. Each party is responsible for bringing copies of written materials in sufficient number
for distribution to Panel members and the opposing party at the hearing. "

From the end of part G in http://usenate.umn.edu/ssms/ssmsprocedures.pdf

I do remember hearing some stuff about the videotape, but I believe that only applied to whether it was furnished for the EOAA report. According to the above passage from SSMC Hearing Procedures the video should be allowed unless the accuser challenges it and can provide a good reason it should not be viewed by the committee.
Click to expand...

Thanks man!
 

CurveballJesus said:
You'd think it would be relevant but the University has already decided otherwise:

Pacyga also says the panel will not be allowed to review key evidence during the hearings, including a 90-second video that showed what police and the university determined was consensual sex between the reporting student and a football player.

University documents, the Student Sexual Misconduct Subcommittee stated the evidence will not be allowed because whether the student had consensual sexual contact with certain individuals “is irrelevant to whether there was consent with other accused students.”

Source is on page 14
Click to expand...

You beat me to it. Forgot about that article until just now.
 

bizzle22 said:
Following up because I just remembered reading this article this morning. Pertaining to the videotape specifically:

"Pacyga also says the panel will not be allowed to review key evidence during the hearings, including a 90-second video that showed what police and the university determined was consensual sex between the reporting student and a football player.

In university documents, the Student Sexual Misconduct Subcommittee stated the evidence will not be allowed because whether the student had consensual sexual contact with certain individuals “is irrelevant to whether there was consent with other accused students.”

http://kstp.com/news/appeal-hearing...layers-university-of-minnesota/4381305/?cat=1
Click to expand...

This is an absolute kangaroo court.

In only these kinds of hearings would anyone be dumb to say that a piece of evidence as probative as a video taken during the incident cannot come in because of relevance. They are literally little kids "playing court".

First, they are arguing that it shouldn't come in because it has nothing to do with the people who were not in the tape. Well, maybe, the U should have allowed each of the accused their own hearing. It's absolutely absurd to say that the accused must have 1 hearing and then not allow evidence because it is relevant to part of the group and not another part. LOL. What?

Second, evidence is almost never perfect (DNA evidence is pretty close), that does not mean it is not probative.

For example, let's say three people are being accused of robbing a liquor store and there was cell phone data that showed they were in the vicinity of the liquor store. Could you imagine an attorney arguing that the cell phone data is IRRELEVANT because "just because they were in the vicinity doesn't mean that they robbed the liquor store"? I'd get laughed out of the court room.

This panel believes that the testimony of a mental health professional is MORE relevant than a video tape of the incident? LOL.

Are there people who believe this is a fair process?
 

Just saw an interview with Ryan Pacyga on Kare 11. One interesting tibit: He got one of the panelists removed and replaced by looking through their twitter history and finding tweets that showed previous bias in the case. He said the tweets were in support of the gopher players suspension.
 



I can understand if the 5 original players get expelled, but the others should be allowed back on the team right away.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
This is an absolute kangaroo court.

In only these kinds of hearings would anyone be dumb to say that a piece of evidence as probative as a video taken during the incident cannot come in because of relevance. They are literally little kids "playing court".

First, they are arguing that it shouldn't come in because it has nothing to do with the people who were not in the tape. Well, maybe, the U should have allowed each of the accused their own hearing. It's absolutely absurd to say that the accused must have 1 hearing and then not allow evidence because it is relevant to part of the group and not another part. LOL. What?

Second, evidence is almost never perfect (DNA evidence is pretty close), that does not mean it is not probative.

For example, let's say three people are being accused of robbing a liquor store and there was cell phone data that showed they were in the vicinity of the liquor store. Could you imagine an attorney arguing that the cell phone data is IRRELEVANT because "just because they were in the vicinity doesn't mean that they robbed the liquor store"? I'd get laughed out of the court room.

This panel believes that the testimony of a mental health professional is MORE relevant than a video tape of the incident? LOL.

Are there people who believe this is a fair process?
Click to expand...

It is a travesty. This whole process makes me throw up in my mouth. I am a little sickened that law professors don't speak up about this. I know why they don't, but they should.
 

DeathClutch said:
Just saw an interview with Ryan Pacyga on Kare 11. One interesting tibit: He got one of the panelists removed and replaced by looking through their twitter history and finding tweets that showed previous bias in the case. He said the tweets were in support of the gopher players suspension.
Click to expand...

We should all think hard about this. It is almost unreal. There is an agenda here and it has zero to do with finding the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Two possibilities. Either Winfield is using a different strategy than the other players, or it's a question of money. I think Winfield Senior probably has a few bucks stashed away from his NFL career, so he may be in a better position to afford outside counsel.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it is helpful to remove yourself from the group, and bifurcate your interests.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
This is an absolute kangaroo court.

In only these kinds of hearings would anyone be dumb to say that a piece of evidence as probative as a video taken during the incident cannot come in because of relevance. They are literally little kids "playing court".

First, they are arguing that it shouldn't come in because it has nothing to do with the people who were not in the tape. Well, maybe, the U should have allowed each of the accused their own hearing. It's absolutely absurd to say that the accused must have 1 hearing and then not allow evidence because it is relevant to part of the group and not another part. LOL. What?

Second, evidence is almost never perfect (DNA evidence is pretty close), that does not mean it is not probative.

For example, let's say three people are being accused of robbing a liquor store and there was cell phone data that showed they were in the vicinity of the liquor store. Could you imagine an attorney arguing that the cell phone data is IRRELEVANT because "just because they were in the vicinity doesn't mean that they robbed the liquor store"? I'd get laughed out of the court room.

This panel believes that the testimony of a mental health professional is MORE relevant than a video tape of the incident? LOL.

Are there people who believe this is a fair process?
Click to expand...

I agree that it seems silly not to let the panel see the video. The only reason that comes to mind is if she is not disputing that that part of the encounter was consensual. I remember from the EOAA report even the accuser and EOAA seemed to acknowledge that there was some consent given for the first encounter. (Which I believe was the threesome with the recruit and a player -- the part that is on video.) If there is no dispute about consent being given for that act then I can see how they might think the video is irrelevant. And remember, I agree with you, I'm just providing a devils advocate explanation.
 

PMWinSTP said:
If that's all you think matters, public opinion, that's extremely shallow. It usually takes the most public and trying situations to expose the failures of policies and processes like this one. The boycott accomplished its goal.
Click to expand...

The boycott accomplished nothing.
 


Greenbayguy said:
The boycott accomplished nothing.
Click to expand...

Well, if getting your cause featured on the front page of the Washington Post and the subject of a 30-minute ESPN show is nothing, you are right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Way too many threads for me to figure this out. Ok, the hearings are today and Friday. When are the decisions made? Guess I'm thinking that National Signing Day is next week. Would we know before that?
 

#2Gopher said:
Way too many threads for me to figure this out. Ok, the hearings are today and Friday. When are the decisions made? Guess I'm thinking that National Signing Day is next week. Would we know before that?
Click to expand...

I can't remember the exact date but it was after NSD.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
This is an absolute kangaroo court.

In only these kinds of hearings would anyone be dumb to say that a piece of evidence as probative as a video taken during the incident cannot come in because of relevance. They are literally little kids "playing court".

First, they are arguing that it shouldn't come in because it has nothing to do with the people who were not in the tape. Well, maybe, the U should have allowed each of the accused their own hearing. It's absolutely absurd to say that the accused must have 1 hearing and then not allow evidence because it is relevant to part of the group and not another part. LOL. What?

Second, evidence is almost never perfect (DNA evidence is pretty close), that does not mean it is not probative.

For example, let's say three people are being accused of robbing a liquor store and there was cell phone data that showed they were in the vicinity of the liquor store. Could you imagine an attorney arguing that the cell phone data is IRRELEVANT because "just because they were in the vicinity doesn't mean that they robbed the liquor store"? I'd get laughed out of the court room.

This panel believes that the testimony of a mental health professional is MORE relevant than a video tape of the incident? LOL.

Are there people who believe this is a fair process?
Click to expand...

Yep, but I do think the appeal hearings and to a certain extent, the whole process, is now in the light of a very bright, hot spotlight. The U knows it, Kaler knows it. Think that helps all accused, most definitely the added five.
 


Thanks Bottlebass and Word...was a little curious as to the timing of everything
 

According to Pacyga, the panel is comprised of 2 students and a recent graduate.

This is insanity. And I will still believe this is insanity if they reach the decision to decline discipline on the 10.
 

Are lawsuits certain to be filed? How is that going to affect the esprit de corps of the team if some players are allowed back while their litigation is ongoing? Will it become a distraction to PJ Fleck's team?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom