The players do NOT have to win an appeal in federal court to bring lawsuits against the U. The U is going to get sued and they are going to be dishing out a lot of money. As far as suing the girl, that has nothing to do with a federal appeal. That's simply not how that stuff works.
The process is already tainted. It's similar to a legal metaphor called "fruit from the poisonous tree". The report was already investigated and written without their attorneys present (her attorney had input and the EOAA was certainly acting on her behalf). The President of the U is already referring to her as a victim. It's simply not a just process to argue that "you'll get to make an argument to that very same entity".
Yes, the discussion of burdens has been discussed a ton on this forum. It has largely been drummed falsely.
OJ was arrested (because there was obviously probable cause).
OJ was charged (because there was obviously probable cause).
These players were not arrested or charged. If you think prosecutors only bring charges on cases where they have, at the time of charges, enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. It's just not the way things get done (thankfully for victims of sexual assault and really any crime).
If charges are not even brought, there is significantly less evidence than if charges are brought and there is an acquittal (typically).
Please stop beating the drum of "burden". It would be an apt argument if the players were charged and acquitted, but it is a horrible analogy for this case. It simply doesn't fit.
I don't think they only bring charges when they have evidence assembled proving beyond reasonable doubt when they bring charges. But it is a primary consideration. The study that below indicates as much. I spoke with a judge, who is a former prosecutor, and a PD about it and they agreed that being able to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt is one of the most important factors in deciding to bring charges. I will believe them, and the studies and articles cited below"
This is from a study titled:
Prosecuting Sexual Assault: A Comparison of
Charging Decisions in Sexual Assault Cases
Involving Strangers, Acquaintances, and
Intimate Partners*
"Although there is general agreement that prosecutors’
attempts to avoid uncertainty (Albonetti, 1986; 1987) and “downstream orientation” to judges and juries (Frohmann, 1997) lead them to file charges only when the odds of conviction at trial are high, less agreement can be found on factors that define or determine convictability."
"Prosecutors were more likely to file charges if there was physical
evidence to connect the suspect to the crime, if the suspect had a prior criminal record, and if there were no questions about the victim’s character or behavior at the time of the incident. This suggests that prosecutors’ concerns about convictability lead them to file charges when they believe the evidence is strong, the suspect is culpable, and the victim is blameless. "
here is a link to the study:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/199720.pdf
Here is quote from a prosecutor:
I am one of several lawyers working as prosecutors in the office of the State’s Attorney. While we all agree that a case should be dropped as soon as it becomes clear that there is little or no likelihood of winning a conviction, some of us think that a prosecutor may make an exception when that might bring about a better outcome, and I’d appreciate having your thoughts on the problem.
http://www.twotlj.org/G-3-178.html
Here's a prosecutor saying he won't charge because he has to consider the possibility of success
According to a transcript of that meeting, Ebrahim said it wasn’t his job to say whether or not he believed Reed, or tell her whether or not she had been raped. He explained that no one who had experienced a sex crime, or who had ever been accused of one, would end up sitting on the jury. So his job was to filter out cases in which 12 jurors, who “have no experience in any kind of sex crimes occurring in their life,” would concur beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape had taken place.
“And that is a mountain that is going to be very hard to climb in front of a jury in trying to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Ebrahim said. “That’s the main problem here.”
“I need to clarify,” Reed pressed, “Regardless of the evidence that I have presented, you are worried about the way the jury is going to react to the evidence, and therefore screening out my case?”
“Yes,” Ebrahim responded. “I have to take into account what the jury’s going to do. I can’t just proceed on a case not taking into account what a reasonable jury would do, absolutely.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5500432.html
And a quote from the Pioneer Press, from the county attorney when they declined to press charges:
“There is insufficient admissible evidence for prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either force was used, or that the victim was physically helpless as defined by law in a sexual encounter,” the county attorney’s office said Monday."
http://www.twincities.com/2016/10/03/suspended-gophers-not-charged-sexual-assault-investigation/
I choose to believe these sources.
You don't think burden of proof is important? So you agree with the burden of proof in the hearing at the U?
Happy Holidays
SKI U MAH!!
