Category: Sexual Assault

PR: Urgent Need for Lawmakers to Stop Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 3, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Urgent Need for Lawmakers to Stop Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / February 3, 2020 – As evidence continues to mount of inept campus administrators and biased adjudications, SAVE urges lawmakers to take prompt steps to reform college sex tribunals, sometimes referred to derisively as “kangaroo courts.”

The federal Department of Education issued in 2011 a policy directing campus disciplinary committees to handle all allegations of sexual assault, including felony-level incidents (1). But problems with the new approach became immediately obvious, as the number of complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights soon increased by more than five-fold (2).

Three recent incidents again illustrate the urgent need for reform:

On January 23, it was reported that the University of Idaho agreed to a $160,000 payment to Mairin Jameson. When Jameson had been sexually harassed and assaulted by a member of the school’s football team, school officials told her the school had no authority to act (3).

Two days later, federal Judge Michael Shea ordered the University of Connecticut to reinstate a male student who had been subjected to a biased campus hearing. The judge found the campus disciplinary committee denied the male student “the right to respond to the accusations against him in a meaningful way, because he had no opportunity to question or confront two of Roe’s witnesses on whose statements the hearing officers chose to rely.” (4)

Then on January 26, Columbia University in New York was in the news when campus adjudicators failed to consider as evidence a 30-minute audio recording suggesting the female was the perpetrator, not the victim, of a sexual assault. Former student Ben Feibleman is now suing Columbia U. for $25 million (5).

The Dept. of Education is expected to issue a new sexual assault regulation in the near future. The Independent Women’s Forum recently announced its support of the new policy, saying, “Campuses have a legal and moral obligation to investigate and address claims of sexual harassment and assault; but they also have an obligation to investigate claims objectively, without presuming the guilt of the accused, and with respect for due process.” (6)

This week, SAVE is launching a month-long campaign designed to raise awareness among lawmakers, campus administrators, and the public about the serious injustices confronting college students. The campaign hashtag is #StopKangarooCourts.

Citations:

SAVE – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is leading the national policy movement to restore due process, stop false allegations, and protect all victims.

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

End to the Campus Kangaroo: Department of Education Needs to Promptly Implement New Title IX Regulation

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 12, 2020

Constitutionally rooted due process is one of the foundations of American society, because it protects individuals from government over-reach and from false allegations.

In 1975, Judge Henry Friendly identified key due process procedures.[1]

An unbiased tribunal.
Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
The right to know opposing evidence.
The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision.

In 2011 the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) pre-emptively issued a Dear Colleague Letter on campus sexual assault.[2] The document was unlawful in the sense that it violated the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it severely weakened constitutionally-rooted due process protections for the accused.

On August 4, 2011, SAVE sent a letter to the OCR expressing concern over the new requirement for use of the “preponderance of evidence” standard, and calling for the Dear Colleague Letter to be rescinded.[3] The OCR did not respond to the substance of the request or even acknowledge receipt of the correspondence.

It wasn’t until six years later that SAVE’s request was fulfilled. On September 22, 2017, the Office for Civil Rights announced its withdrawal of the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and its 2014 Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence.[4]

Last year SAVE published a Special Report, Appellate Court Decisions for Allegations of Campus Sexual Misconduct, 2013-2018.[5] The report analyzes the 14 appellate cases decided in favor of the accused student involving campus sexual assault. These were the most common due process violations identified in the Judicial Findings, in descending order:

Insufficient hearing process
Lack of cross-examination/Inadequate credibility assessment
Insufficient notice
Inadequate investigation
Conflicting roles of college officials
Improper use or exclusion of witness testimony
Potential sex bias
Misuse of affirmative consent policy

These eight violations closely track the due process procedures that Judge Friendly identified 45 years before.

Sexual assault complainants are unhappy with the current state of affairs, as well. SAVE has identified examples of persons who said their mistreatment at the hands of inept college officials was more traumatic than the original sexual assault. A recent CBS News documentary highlighted victims who complained that the current system is not working for them.[6]

In short, the current campus “Kangaroo Courts” represent a failed response to the problem of campus sexual assault.

On November 29, 2018 the Department of Education released its proposed Title IX regulations.[7] Among other things, the proposed regulation will restore a series of due process procedures on college campuses:[8]

A presumption of innocence for the respondent throughout the grievance process;
The school must objectively evaluate all relevant evidence including inculpatory and exculpatory evidence;
All Title IX Coordinators, investigators and decision-makers must not have conflicts of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents;
Training materials for Title IX Coordinators, investigators and decision-makers must foster impartial determinations without relying on sex stereotypes;
A respondent cannot face discipline without due process protections;
Ensure the burden of proof and burden of gathering evidence rest on the school, not on the parties;
Provide equal opportunity for both parties to present witnesses and evidence;
Not restrict the ability of either party to discuss the allegations or gather relevant evidence (e.g., no “gag orders”);
Provide the parties with the same opportunity to be accompanied at all phases of the grievance process by an advisor of the party’s choice (who may be an attorney);
Give written notice of any interview, meeting, or hearing at which a party is invited or expected to participate;
Provide equal access to review all the evidence that the school investigator has collected, including the investigative report, giving each party equal opportunity to respond to that evidence before a determination is made;
For colleges and universities, a final determination must be made at a live hearing, and cross-examination must be allowed (with rape shield protections against asking about a complainant’s sexual history) and must be conducted by each party’s advisor (i.e., no personal confrontation allowed).
After investigation, a written determination must be sent to both parties explaining for each allegation whether the respondent is responsible or not responsible including the facts and evidence on which the conclusion is based. The determination must be made by a decisionmaker who is not the same person as the Title IX Coordinator or investigator
Where a finding of responsibility is made against the respondent, the written determination must describe what remedies the school will provide to the survivor to restore or preserve equal access to the school’s education program or activity, and any sanctions imposed on the respondent.

Nine years after the Department of Education issued its Dear Colleague Letter, the debate has been resolved. Neither identified victims nor accused students are being well served by the new campus regime. The current system is broken. SAVE urges the Office of Management and Budget to publish the new Title IX regulations promptly, and calls upon the Department of Education to vigorously enforce the new requirements.

[1] https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5317&context=penn_law_review

[2] http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

[3] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/OCRLetter.pdf

[4] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-title-ix-201709.pdf

[5] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Appellate-Court-Cases-Report.pdf

[6] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/title-ix-sexual-misconduct-on-campus-cbsn-documentary/

[7] https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2018-OCR-0064-0001

[8] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/background-summary-proposed-ttle-ix-regulation.pdf

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

PR: SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Rein in the Campus Kangaroo

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 9, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Rein in the Campus Kangaroo

WASHINGTON / January 8, 2020 – After nine years of campus adjudications that triggered thousands of federal complaints and hundreds of lawsuits, SAVE — a national policy organization — is calling on lawmakers to take steps to reform campus sex tribunals, sometimes referred to derisively as “kangaroo courts.”

In 2011 the federal Department of Education issued a controversial policy directing campus disciplinary committees to handle all allegations of sexual assault, even incidents that fell within the definition of a criminal offense (1).

Serious problems with the new approach soon became obvious, as the number of complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights increased by more than five-fold. The number of Title IX complaints skyrocketed from 391 complaints in 2010 to over 2,000 complaints in 2013 and 2014 (2). In some cases, women complained the mistreatment at the hands of inept campus officials was more traumatic than the actual assault (3).

Likewise, the number of lawsuits by accused students against universities increased dramatically, with a majority of lawsuits decided in favor of the accused student. From these many lawsuits, SAVE has identified the 25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process (4). A CBS News documentary summed up the situation this way: “Students accused of sexual misconduct say Title IX isn’t working – and victims agree.” (5)

In 2018, the Dept. of Education issued a draft regulatory framework (6), which is expected to be finalized in early 2020. In support of this effort, SAVE is urging lawmakers to assure that three fundamental due process protections on college campuses are implemented in their state (7):

Clearly stated presumption of innocence
Timely and detailed written notice of the allegations
Right to a meaningful hearing process. This includes having the case adjudicated by persons other than the person who conducted the investigation. This means the institution must not employ a “single-investigator model.”

More information is available on the SAVE website (8).

Citations:

SAVE – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is leading the national policy movement to restore due process, stop false allegations, and protect all victims.

Sexual Assault

PR: New Tools Aim to Assist Defense Attorneys in Combating ‘Start By Believing’ Bias

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 15, 2019

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

New Tools Aim to Assist Defense Attorneys in Combating ‘Start By Believing’ Bias

WASHINGTON / March 15, 2019 – In response to a pledge taken by law enforcement officers and prosecutors across the country to “Start By Believing,”ⁱ Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) announces the release of a series of model cross-examination questions and jury voir dire questions. Developed with the input of veteran defense attorneys, these questions are intended to aid attorneys in exposing the biased results of investigations based on Start By Believing or other “victim-centered” methods. ⁱⁱ

Every defense attorney knows the frustration of losing a case where the defendant was clearly innocent, but the police detective failed to perform a thorough and unbiased investigation. A recent study confirms that “[a]n investigator’s belief that a person is guilty may be the reason innocent people get convicted.”ⁱⁱⁱ Defense attorneys should be aware that utilization of Start by Believing techniques is widespread and must be probed at trial.

For example, SBB-trained investigators conduct investigations that:

Begin with the premise that the complaining witness is telling the truth,
De-emphasize inconsistent complainant statements in order to “minimize the risk of contradiction,” and
Emphasize feelings over facts to sway the judge and jury in favor of complainants^iv

These types of investigations must be aggressively examined and exposed by asking such questions as:

You’ve seen investigations resulting from false allegations? If you “Start By Believing,” you might never discover those false allegations?;
You took steps to corroborate the complaining witness’ report, but you didn’t take steps to refute his/her statements?; and
You will agree that when you start your investigation by believing the complaining witness, that necessarily means that you’ve made a pre-judgment about the guilt of the accused?

SAVE has also developed several proposed voir dire questions to aid in vetting potential jurors. Defense attorneys should recognize that members of the general public have been exposed to Start By Believing concepts via the mass media, or school or workplace training^v.

Prosecutors may move forward with cases that have been improperly investigated. The City of Charleston, SC, recently settled with a college student wrongfully charged with rape.^vi “We don’t give up, even when an investigation is subpar,” the prosecutor admitted.^viiIn accordance with Start By Believing philosophy, the prosecutor accepted the poorly investigated claims of the purported victim at face value, at the expense of the rights of the accused. The student was later acquitted by a jury after only a few minutes’ deliberation.

It is only a matter of time before similar trials are conducted across the country, and defense attorneys should be prepared.

The full list of cross-examination and voir dire questions is available here: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/cross-examination-voir-dire/ See more about SAVE’s national campaign to warn criminal defense attorneys, lawmakers, and others about the perils of Start By Believing: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/sbb/.

Citations:

i https://www.evawintl.org/Library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=789

ii http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/cross-examination-voir-dire/

iii https://phys.org/news/2018-10-guilty-proven-innocent-police-perceptions.html

iv https://www.evawintl.org/library/Detail.aspx?ItemID=43

v https://www.startbybelieving.org/resources/#campaignmaterials

vi http://www.live5news.com/2019/02/21/city-charleston-pays-k-settle-false-arrest-suit/?outputType=amp

vii https://www.postandcourier.com/news/quick-not-guilty-verdict-for-ex-college-of-charleston-student/article_bc40e27e-e500-11e7-88a4-1b8b1c49ad0f.html

Campus Sexual Assault

Harvard Law School Professors Evaluate Department of Education’s Proposed Rule for Title IX Enforcement

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 30, 2019

January 30, 2019

Feminist Harvard Law School Professors Evaluate Department of Education’s Proposed Rule for Title IX Enforcement

Jeannie Suk Gersen, Nancy Gertner, and Janet Halley, professors at Harvard Law School, have issued a Comment on the Department of Education’s Proposed Rule on Title IX enforcement. The authors write: “We strongly support vigorous enforcement of Title IX to ensure that students enjoy educational programs and activities unburdened by sexual harassment.”

They argue that “sanctions for sexual harassment should apply only under a clear definition of wrongful conduct

and after a process that is fair to all parties.”

With these dual objectives in mind, the Comment reviews the Department of Education’s Proposed Rule and agrees with some aspects and disagrees with others. The authors agree (with some suggested amendments) with the Rule’s treatment of the burden of

proof, the rejection of the single -investigator model, and the requirement of a live hearing process. They argue that the rules they endorse do not undermine the critical goal of enforcing Title IX. They express serious concerns about the provisions on cross examination and the definition of sexual harassment, and propose revisions that will be more protective of complainants.

The Comment strongly objects to provisions encouraging schools to file complaints when they have multiple allegations against a single potential respondent but no formal complainant: the inquiry there should be refocused on the threat of harm and take into

account the complainants’ as well as the respondents’

interests. The three professors say that they “strongly object to the deliberate indifference standard for schools’ ultimate responsibility to respond to sexual harassment.”

Gersen, Gertner and Halley have researched, taught, and written on Title IX, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and feminist legal reform. They were three of the signatories to the statement of twenty-eight Harvard Law School professors, published in the Boston Globe on October 15, 2014, that criticized Harvard University’s newly adopted sexual harassment policy as “overwhelmingly stacked against the accused” and “in no way required by Title IX law or regulation.”

To access the Comment, go to:

https://perma.cc/3F9K-PZSB

Inquiries please contact:

Jeannie Suk Gersen, jsg@law.harvard.edu

Nancy Gertner, ngertner@law.harvard.edu

Janet Halley, jhalley@law.harvard.edu

Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

Milestone Award in Maine to Compensate Victim of Prosecutorial Misconduct

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 2, 2018

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Milestone Award in Maine to Compensate Victim of Prosecutorial Misconduct

WASHINGTON / October 2, 2018 – In a first for Maine, the state has agreed to compensate a victim of prosecutorial misconduct. Last week it was announced that the state will pay Vladek Filler a settlement of $375,000, arising from the misconduct of former Hancock County Assistant District Attorney Mary Kellett, police officials, and others.

In 2007, Ligia Filler alleged she was a victim of marital rape. Ignoring exculpatory evidence, ADA Kellett prosecuted Vladek on several counts of sexual assault. Filler was convicted of assault, but was cleared of the rape charges made during a divorce and child custody battle. Eventually, the assault charge was also dismissed.

In 2011, SAVE filed a Grievance Complaint against Kellett with the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar alleging improper withholding of evidence and other misconduct. On May 12, 2011, SAVE held a press conference at the Penobscot Judicial Center in Bangor (1).

The complaint was investigated and eventually referred to the Maine Supreme Court, which ruled against the prosecutor in 2013. Mary Kellett issued a public apology and was required to attend ethics training. She later resigned her position.

In 2015, Vladek filed a civil rights lawsuit against Kellett and other parties. The lawsuit against a nurse who coached Ligia to cry during testimony to make her claims more credible is still outstanding (2).

More information on Vladek Filler’s exoneration is available from the National Registry of Exonerations (3). The legal documents of the lawsuit are available online (4).

October 2 is Wrongful Conviction Day (5).

Citations:

http://www.saveservices.org/camp/intolerable-injustice/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36302/maine-man-receives-375000-after-false-rape-ashe-schow
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4694
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/6844884/FILLER_v_HANCOCK_COUNTY_et_al#
http://www.intlwrongfulconvictionday.org/

SAVE — Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is working for effective and fair solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

SAVE Calls on Sen. Hirono to Withdraw and Apologize for Sexist ‘Shut-Up’ Remarks

Post author By saveadmin
Post date September 21, 2018

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Calls on Sen. Hirono to Withdraw and Apologize for Sexist ‘Shut-Up’ Remarks

WASHINGTON / September 21, 2018 – During a Tuesday press conference, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii made remarks that have stirred controversy about the diminished importance of free speech and due process in America. Commenting on a possible FBI investigation of allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Hirono declared, “Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed… I just want to say to the men in this country — just shut up and step up!.” [emphasis added] (1)

A recent YouGov poll confirms a different picture. The poll found only one-quarter of Americans believe the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh to be credible. When asked: “Do you think that the allegation of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh generally is or is not credible?” 28% of men said it was credible, while 25% of women gave the same response (2).

Patrice Lee Onwuka of the Independent Women’s Forum emphasizes, “We cannot abandon the presumption of innocence because assuming he’s ‘probably guilty’ serves certain political motives…. it’s wrong to jump to conclusions or use unsubstantiated allegations for political purposes. Not only is that unfair to the accused but it sets up a harmful precedent for the future.” (3)

Writing in the Boston Globe, Jennifer Braceras wrote, “The she-said/he-said nature of the allegations; Ford’s failure to mention the event to anyone for decades; and her inability to provide key details such the location or specific time frame of the alleged assault raise reasonable questions about her credibility.” (4)

One of the strongest critics of Hirono’s remarks was Fox News host Tucker Carlson. During his September 19 monologue, Carlson commented on the meaning of Hirono’s statement:

“It’s not just Brett Kavanaugh that’s guilty, but ‘the men of this country,’ every single one of them, Carlson said, because they’re men. Tucker also said liberals recently ignored a woman who accused Keith Ellison of sexual assault, which occurred within the last year, not 36 years ago.

“That’s a command from the United States senator,” Carlson said of Hirono’s call for men to shut up. “It’s not optional, it’s mandatory. So repeat after Mazie Hirono: Men always lie, women never do. One sex is evil, the other is holy. That’s the Catechism of the Church of Late-Stage Feminism.” (5)

Seldom has an elected official instructed a class of Americans to “shut up,” or to accept the veracity of a sexual assault allegation without corroboration. The First Amendment guarantees the right to express opinions and beliefs. The presumption of innocence is a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

SAVE believes justice is best served when Constitutional guarantees of due process are respected, not when lawmakers engage in a politically calculated rush to judgement.

Citations:

SAVE — Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is working for effective and fair solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

False Allegations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Wrongful Convictions

Recent Exoneration of Joshua Horner, Wrongfully Convicted of Sex Abuse, Spotlights Widespread Problem of False Allegations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date September 12, 2018

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Email: info@saveservices.org

Recent Exoneration of Joshua Horner, Wrongfully Convicted of Sex Abuse, Spotlights Widespread Problem of False Allegations

WASHINGTON / September 12, 2018 – This past Monday, Deschutes County Judge Michael Adler overturned a 50-year sentence against Joshua Horner of Redmond, Oregon. Horner had been convicted on April 12, 2017 of sexual abuse of a minor. In the trial, the complainant testified that Horner shot and killed her dog as a warning that she not bring her sexual molestation claim to the police. https://www.opb.org/news/article/redmond-oregon-innocence-project-exonoration-josh-horner/

With the assistance of the Oregon Innocence Project, the dog was recently found alive and well in another city, casting significant doubt on the truthfulness of the accuser. It was the first exoneration for the Oregon Innocence Project, launched in 2014 to exonerate the wrongfully convicted and promote legal reforms.

Horner’s exoneration highlights the problem of false allegations in criminal cases. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, false allegations/perjury are the most common contributing factors for wrongful convictions, representing 57% of all exonerations. False allegations/perjury are especially common in child sex abuse cases (85% of exonerations) and homicide cases (69% of exonerations). http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsContribFactorsByCrime.aspx

Nearly one in 10 persons – 9.7% — of respondents to a national survey said they had been falsely accused of sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse. Three-quarters of persons claiming to be falsely accused were male. http://www.saveservices.org/dv/falsely-accused/survey/

On college campuses, false allegations of sexual misconduct are believed to be commonplace. In over 100 lawsuits against universities, judges have sided with the accused student. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CsFhy86oxh26SgTkTq9GV_BBrv5NAA5z9cv178Fjk3o/edit#gid=0 At one university, the training materials openly justify false allegations of sexual assault, claiming that verified “lies” of accusers “should be considered a side effect of an assault.” https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/47631/

False allegations are not a victimless crime. Nikki Yovino, 18, was recently convicted and sentenced to one year in jail for false reporting of an alleged campus rape in Connecticut. At the sentencing hearing, Malik St. Hilaire, victim of her false accusation, explained, “I went from being a college student, to sitting at home being expelled with no way to clear my name.”

September is False Allegations Awareness Month. http://www.saveservices.org/camp/faam-2018/

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments works to end sexual assault and domestic violence.

Campus Sexual Assault

Responding to Judicial Scoldings, State Legislators Seek to Rein in Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 13, 2018

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Responding to Judicial Scoldings, State Legislators Seek to Rein in Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / August 13, 2018 – The movement to restore due process in campus sexual assault cases is gaining momentum, as lawmakers in several states have worked to restore due process and fairness in campus sexual assault proceedings. The trend began with California Governor Jerry Brown’s 2017 veto of a bill that would have solidified a number of anti-due process policies on campus. The trend is now being propelled by a surge of lawsuits by accused students against universities and colleges.

“In a stunning collective judicial rebuke to many campuses’ unfair treatment of students accused of sexual misconduct, courts have issued at least 102 rulings against universities since 2011, compared with 88 rulings in their favor,” notes a recent report (1). Many of the decisions were written using pointed language that was strongly critical of the university policies procedures. In 46 other cases, colleges have opted to settle the lawsuit prior to a judicial decision, rather than pursue expensive and potentially embarrassing litigation (2).

In two states, pro-due process bills have been introduced in 2018, but not enacted into law:

In South Carolina, House Bill 3303 would provide students with reasonable notice, a presumption of non-responsibility for the accused, the right to have an attorney who can participate in proceedings, and impartial fact-finders (3).

In Ohio, public colleges would be required to develop sexual-misconduct policies “with the goal of enhancing due process,” under a bill that has passed the House and moved to the Senate (4).

In Maryland, lawmakers took up Senate Bill 607, which required disciplinary proceedings to include a description of the rights for students and specified that an institution may not prevent a student from retaining an attorney. The bill passed both the Senate and House with strong bipartisan support (5).

In three other states, bills that erode due process protections have been sidelined:

In Massachusetts, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives declined to take action on H.632, which had been previously passed by the state’s Senate. Critics of H.632 highlighted the flaws of trauma-informed training for investigators, a provision that had been derided as “junk science.” (6)

In Colorado, House Bill 18-1391 was approved in the House. But the bill failed to include sufficient due process protections, so the bill it was significantly amended in the Senate, resulting in the bill’s postponement (7).

In West Virginia, House Bill 2825, a bill that would have mandated problematic “affirmative consent” polices at the state’s colleges, was not voted upon prior to adjournment of the legislative session (8).

A summary of the current status of the campus sexual assault bills introduced in 2018 is available on the SAVE website (9).

Citations:

SAVE — Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is working for effective and fair solutions to domestic violence and campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Campus Press Release Sexual Assault

PR: 23 Cornell Law Profs Support Suspended Student in Sexual Assault Appeal

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 3, 2018

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

23 Cornell Law Profs Support Suspended Student in Sexual Assault Appeal

WASHINGTON / April 3, 2018 – Twenty-three Cornell Law School professors have requested to file an Amicus Brief in support of a student who was accused of campus sexual assault and later suspended. The Cornell statement is the fourth statement from law professors calling for the restoration of due process rights on campus.

Two Cornell students had a sexual encounter in August of 2016. The woman filed a complaint, claiming she had consumed too much alcohol to give valid consent. The university panel later recommended that the male student, “John Doe,” be suspended for two years. The student has now appealed the suspension to the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, which is the intermediary appeals court in that state.

The crux of the appeal is the right of a student to cross-examine his accuser. The male student submitted a series of questions to the university panel to be answered by the woman. But Cornell refused to forward any of the questions, thereby negating the student’s right to cross-examination.

The professors’ Statement of Interest notes, “we have an interest in ensuring that Cornell’s procedures are interpreted properly and applied fairly and faithfully. And, as is explained below, we believe that in this case, a Cornell disciplinary hearing panel failed to comply with an important procedural safeguard clearly set out in Cornell’s Title IX policy – the right of an accused student to have a disciplinary hearing panel conduct inquiry of his accuser about proper topics that he proposed.” (1)

The Cornell professors’ Motion to File Amicus Brief is the fourth public statement by law professors in support of due process in campus sexual assault cases. The other letters were filed by law professors from Harvard Law School (2), University of Pennsylvania (3), and from other universities (4).

In 86 cases, judges have ruled in favor of accused students who have filed lawsuits against their universities (5). SAVE anticipates that professors from other law schools will offer statements in support of campus due process.

Citations:

SAVE — Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is working for effective and fair solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org