How would you handle Trevor's situation if you were the AD?

Donate To GopherHole
He plays. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If found guilty, he doesn't play. Where is there a question in all this?
 

I still have to think that Maturi has gathered enough information to have a very good idea of how this will play out in court. I can't believe he will be blindsided by the eventual outcome of these charges against Trevor.
 

I still can't get past the fact that the physical description of the assailant was so far off from Trevor's actual body frame. Is it true that other similar attacks have occurred since Trevor's departure from Florida?
 

Yes, but....

upchurch said:
He plays. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If found guilty, he doesn't play. Where is there a question in all this?
Click to expand...

Here's the problem: The "let-him-play-because-he's-innocent-until-proven-guilty" crowd forgets that applying this broad rubric to all situations would have allowed Alex Daniels, Keith Massey, and E.J. Jones to play football, pending the result of their trials. In that situation, whether guilty or not, we had good information that unsavory behavior took place and they were rightly suspended/kicked off the football team.

The difference between the Jones situation and Trevor's is a great example why the rules have the provision allowing the AD discretion to let a charged player play. Trevor reportedly has the so-called "absolute defense"--a claim of no involvement whatsoever plus the added bonus of alibis to back him up. That is why I'm okay if Maturi uses his discretion and allows him to play, as properly allowed by the U's rules.
 

[In the spirit of full disclosure: I'm a Marquette grad and have followed Mbakwe for years. I'm also a Gophers season ticket holder. Trevor's behavior and things he has said about the situation at Marquette bring some aspects of his character and maturity into question for me, but I wish him all the best and think he is ready to make a big mark in the Big Ten and would love to see him playing this year. Despite thinking he's handled some things the wrong way, that in no way makes me think that he's more or less likely to be guilty with regard to the criminal charges in Florida - completely different thing - extremely serious. There is nothing he's done/said/etc. that I know of that would indicate he'd be capable of such a heinous crime. As a young man, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Doesn't mean I'd let him play if I was AD though.]

I’m OK with Maturi making a decision to either let him play or not play – but just make the damn decision. I believe ultimately Mbakwe will not be allowed to play in regular season games.

Any talk of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is irrelevant as to whether or not you let him play. The question is whether he plays basketball on scholarship for the Gophers, not whether or not he serves a jail or prison sentence.

Maturi has had all the information he’s going to have for a long time. Granted, it’s interesting (and astounding to me) that back in late July when asked about the issue by the press, Maturi said he’s not familiar with the case and has no details on it (the arrest occurred in late April).

Unless there are disgusting motives involved (such as waiting to see how the team looks – can Mbakwe make the difference between being #18 in the nation and a second round exit vs. making a run to the Final Four?), I do not see any reason for Maturi to continue to delay this decision other than this: The only reasonable and acceptable motive I can see is that Maturi wants to wait and see if charges are unexpectedly dropped or some bombshell information comes out that clears Trevor. This will not happen and there will be no substantial progress in the criminal complaint matter for quite some time (this case is not going to progress for months and months). Thus, Maturi will not let the young man play.

There are things to think about from the University’s perspective, but they have had all the time in the world to ponder them. Why did Mbakwe skip town abruptly in April, shortly after the incident? Some would suggest it was because he was being threatened by the victim’s friends and family. Others would say a Miami-Dade College employee told him the police were looking at him for the crime and he wanted to get the heck out of the state.

I hope Trevor had nothing to do with this and give him the benefit of the doubt at this point. I’m OK with Minnesota saying, “We believe the kid. For now, he’s playing.” But I don’t think that’s been the posture the U has taken in the past when there have been serious criminal charges against student-athletes.

I saw a post here saying that Maturi should know how this case will likely turn out – that’s ridiculous. If this ever goes to the jury trial, you simply can’t predict what the outcome will be. You’ll have a prosecuting attorney talking about multiple high schools, about skipping town a day before classes start in Milwaukee, about skipping town in Florida, etc. Never know how a jury will see things.

If Minnesota is OK giving Mbakwe the benefit of the doubt that he did not commit such a disturbing crime, I’m fine with that. Ultimately, however, I think Maturi will determine that this matter needs to be cleared up before he will be OK with the guy playing at Williams Arena. And that’s not going to happen by November 5 or whenever Maturi currently “believes” he’ll make a decision by.
 


Jay Bee said:
[


I saw a post here saying that Maturi should know how this case will likely turn out – that’s ridiculous. If this ever goes to the jury trial, you simply can’t predict what the outcome will be. You’ll have a prosecuting attorney talking about multiple high schools, about skipping town a day before classes start in Milwaukee, about skipping town in Florida, etc. Never know how a jury will see things.

.
Click to expand...
I agree that the skill of the prosecutor and the gullibility of the jury can determine a court case especially where there is an incompetent defense. However I am assuming that Trevor has a skilled lawyer who will provide a strong competent defense. If so then the case will likely be decided by the facts and if Trevor is indeed innocent it will be very difficult for the prosecutor to convince a jury otherwise. I believe that Joel Maturi should know the facts of this case well enough to make an accurate prediction of Trevors innocence or guilt.
 

Jay Bee said:
[
. You’ll have a prosecuting attorney talking about multiple high schools, about skipping town a day before classes start in Milwaukee,
.
Click to expand...

If these items are allowed to be entered into the case then we will know that Trevor's lawyer is incompetent and that the Judge is being lax about his job.
 

Roy Christensen said:
I believe that Joel Maturi should know the facts of this case well enough to make an accurate determination of Trevors innocence or guilt.
Click to expand...

Ahhh. So Maturi, who can't even figure out that a recruit had a felony arrest for several months, will be able to gather enough facts in his 'court of the University' that he can accurately determine innocence or guilt in a felony matter? By doing what? Talking to Trevor? Confirming he's going to classes and being a friendly and nice guy around campus? I'm certain he's not going to be speaking with the victim, the police won't tell him more than what's in the police report, and the prosecutor sure as heck isn't going to discuss evidence with Joel.

Maybe we should do away with the legal system in this country and just have all defendants talk to Joel, let him know their side of the story, then he'll be able to accurately adjudicate the matter.
 

I believe that the prosecutors office is required to share any evidence with the defense. I would assume that the defense attorney is willing to talk to the AD. If at that point there is any doubt in his mind and considering the bearing this case will have on Maturi's reputation and the reputation of the basketball program and the University as a whole I believe that the AD would use the services of an investigator before making a decision. Wouldn't you?
 



TubbytownUSA said:
You let him play, absolutely, 100 percent. This is America. Nothing has been proved against him. If he's guilty you kick him off the team. If he's innocent, he continues to play. His innocence or guilt is to be found in the court of law. Until then, he's innocent and should definitely play.
Click to expand...

The problem is not with America, it's with the NCAA. They are one of the most un-American organizations one will ever find. Their penalties are ridiculous, usually groundless, administered unevenly (some schools get no punishment, some get the "death penalty") and they are a dictatorship.

If this player turns out to be guilty and we have been playing him, heaven help us dealing with the NCAA.
 

Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this has nothing to do with the NCAA. This is a legal issue, not a NCAA issue. This involves an institutional decision that will be made by the University of Minnesota. If Trevor plays and then is found guilty, the U hasn't broken any NCAA rules or regulations by playing him, so long as he's eligible, been going to class, etc.

The U would, however, have some serious egg on its face & would have significant bad PR to overcome if that's the way the case turns out.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this has nothing to do with the NCAA. This is a legal issue, not a NCAA issue. This involves an institutional decision that will be made by the University of Minnesota. If Trevor plays and then is found guilty, the U hasn't broken any NCAA rules or regulations by playing him, so long as he's eligible, been going to class, etc.

The U would, however, have some serious egg on its face & would have significant bad PR to overcome if that's the way the case turns out.
Click to expand...

Correct - if this was an NCAA issue, we'd be talking about waiting for them, instead of for the date that Maturi 'believes' he will decide. The fact of the matter is playing Mbakwe (and perhaps already due to the length of time this indecision has gone on for) will put some 'egg on the face' of Minnesota in the view of some people, no matter what the eventual outcome is. The court of public opinion is in session long before the court of law is.
For some, knowing that a guy has been charged with a deplorable crime is reason enough to not play him. I can understand this viewpoint. And this is not simply a case where someone has made an accusation and the authorities are looking into it. This is a case where he's been charged, booked, police investigations have occurred and prosecutors have gone forward with the matter. Many would say having the guy on your team is bad PR and a distraction, etc... even though he may have done absolutely nothing wrong.
 

As far as investigation is concerned I don't think it is Joel's job to start an independent investigation to determine absolute guilt or innocence. That might even be considered interfering with the wheels of justice.

It seems to me Joel has the obligation to interview the student-athlete, review all pertinent public court records and documents, review the media accounts, interview other university officials that may have some knowledge of the situation and make his decision based primarily on that. It seems to me he should not be investigating whether witnesses (the woman or the players friends) are telling the truth. That should be left up to the court.

The player as a Student-Athlete however, should have an obligation to answer the AD's inquiry. If the player cooperates with Joel's investigation of the matter that would seem to me to be a point in the players favor. I would think that the player would have gotten advice from his lawyer on whether or not to talk with the AD.

I know very little about the previous suspensions on the football team - but I would think that the players involved in the football player incidents may not have cooperated with the AD or admitted some culpability in the matter or there was overwhelming physical evidence (like a video) and therefore were suspended. It seems other players have been involved in some alleged incidents and have not been suspended - but I am not sure about that. If Mbakwe agrees to answer Maturi's questions during his University inquiry and he maintains his innocence that would speak in favor of Mbakwe's position to play.

All speculation on my part.
 




DiehardGopher said:
Innocent until proven guilty. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is as simple as that. There are other examples where student-athletes have been suspended, but have not been found guilty. The University is not bound by the 'innocent til proven guilty' standard.
 

I know they have no obligation to that and can do what they deem necessary to avoid bad PR, but on the other hand it just seems harsh to me to suspend a player that has accusations levied against him before he has been judged by a court of his peers. Especially when from all accounts he has handled the situation very maturely.
 

DiehardGopher said:
Especially when from all accounts he has handled the situation very maturely.
Click to expand...

You say he has handled the situation very maturely? How so? The AD didn't even know the details of the charges (although he was arrested in April) for four months. Was skipping town and moving in with his mom before he got arrested the mature part?

Under the University's student-athlete code of conduct, Mbakwe was subject to an automatic suspension. Maturi already lifted that suspension with respect to practicing. However, at this point I'd be shocked if Mbakwe is allowed to play in a regular season game. At any rate, the University's code calls for an automatic suspension - innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, again, is irrelevant.

That said, the U's code also allows for matters to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Someone had referenced the football 'matter' a couple of years ago - in that case, there were actually 3 players that were immediately suspended, and never played again - 3 players that were never even charged.

I think some fans will quickly grow tired of, 'felony assault ... beating up a woman after trying to pull her pants down... etc' in every story about the Gophers (example: SI's capsule on the Gophers today). It's a crappy situation - here's what I would do now:
Let him practice, but not play. Tell him, "go forward with the trial in December - we believe in you. When you're found not guilty we'll celebrate and have you in the starting lineup for the Big Ten season"...then see what happens (probably nothing - I expect this to drag on for many more months).

BTW - to the guy that thinks there is some super-defense team helping Trevor - his lawyer has been helping him with filings such as motions for insolvency, to be declared indigent for costs, to have the taxpayers pay for travel costs of witnesses, etc. Innocent people can and are convicted in courts of law,.. especially the indigent.
 

DiehardGopher said:
I know they have no obligation to that and can do what they deem necessary to avoid bad PR, but on the other hand it just seems harsh to me to suspend a player that has accusations levied against him before he has been judged by a court of his peers. Especially when from all accounts he has handled the situation very maturely.
Click to expand...

The University has an obligation to treat the player fairly - bad PR or not.

The University, as I see it, has no obligation to wait for the player to be 'judged by a court of his peers' before making their own independent decision using the Student-athlete code of conduct.
 

Jay Bee said:
You say he has handled the situation very maturely? How so? The AD didn't even know the details of the charges (although he was arrested in April) for four months. Was skipping town and moving in with his mom before he got arrested the mature part?

The alleged fact that he left Miami at the time of the incident gave me some pause also. However, I have seen others post that Miami Dade has lots of opportunity for on-line classes - the basketball season at a high ranking junior college who is a feeder to a billion dollar industry - the NCAA - was just over - things seemed to be happening in Miami that might make him feel more comfortable in St. Paul with his mom. I don't think we have enough evidence to conclude that his actions were mature or not.

Under the University's student-athlete code of conduct, Mbakwe was subject to an automatic suspension.


From the CODE "C. Local, State and Federal Laws

Student-athletes who are alleged (including arrested or charged) to have broken local, state and federal laws will be subject to team and department sanctions upon a case by case review."


Mbakwe was not subject to an automatic suspension he was subject to 'department sanction upon a case by case review'. Sanctions could include as little as a reprimand according to the CODE.


Maturi already lifted that suspension with respect to practicing.

Maturi at this point has neither suspended nor lifted a suspension.

It's a crappy situation - here's what I would do now:
Let him practice, but not play.

If you follow what is spelled out in the CODE there is no distinction between 'practicing' and 'playing'. If you are suspended from one you are suspended from both. In the final analysis the AD or his agent can make a different decision than what is spelled out in the CODE.

from the CODE "For the purposes of this code of conduct, suspension from the team means that student-athletes may not practice, compete or travel with any University of Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletics team."

I expect this to drag on for many more months). --- I agree.
Click to expand...

I agree this could easily drag on and the trial will not happen in December. I agree with lots of what you have written but Maturi has an obligation to be fair to Mbakwe - I venture to guess there are prior similar situations that have come up and those will be looked at - so as not to single out Mbakwe - one way or the other.
 

Once you abide by “innocent until proven otherwise” in athletic matters (which is clearly different from its legal implication), institutions and some people may intervene one way or another and attempt to prolong the due process so that they can have a prettier win column. Suspension removes the incentive for such moral hazard. As far as I know, suspension is universally practiced in NCAA sports with respect to felony charges regardless of evidence revealed before the trials. Also, how about negative publicity, team distractions, fan-base division, etc., when you allow the athletes in question to play?

Of course, the customary suspension does cost the innocent in a serious way. But, the cost is smaller than its counterpart by playing the charged until proven guilty or based on pre-trial evidence indicating innocence of the charged. At least, that is how I see it.

It is not up to Maturi to determine the innocence or otherwise of Trevor. If he allows Trevor play based on evidence of Trevor’s innocence before they are examined in court, the decision will have consequences in the long run as many unscrupulous characters and institutions will try to take advantage of the precedent.

Unless he has good enough argument as to why there should be an exception and is able to persuade others around the country, Maturi and therefore the U will be condemned by almost all except our fans for the decision of playing Trevor.

Maturi should play dumb, hurt, whatever, for a while so as to buy time on the issue until the season starts. If the charge is not dropped by the opening game, I hope he will do the right thing, whatever it is.
 

rrjackIII said:
I agree this could easily drag on and the trial will not happen in December. I agree with lots of what you have written but Maturi has an obligation to be fair to Mbakwe - I venture to guess there are prior similar situations that have come up and those will be looked at - so as not to single out Mbakwe - one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Sorry bud, but you're wrong. The student-athlete code calls for an immediate suspension if someone is arrested or charged related to a sexual or physical assault. When you say, "Maturi at this point has neither suspended nor lifted a suspension", and that Mbakwe was not subject to an automatic suspension you are simply wrong - there is an automatic suspension. Maturi has no obligation to Mbakwe with respect to him being charged with a felony. That's ridiculous. You're not quoting the relevant parts of the code.

The online class thing - blah. There is absolutely no doubt that Trevor packed up and ran off abruptly due to this issue - do your research (including Trevor's own interviews regarding his timing of coming back to Minnesota). The only question is whether he did it because he was told the police were given his name and they would be stopping by soon, if he did it because he felt threatened and was scared because of threats, or for some other bizarre reason.

By the way, this could have already gone to trial - but there's no way Mbakwe or his attorney (who is far more known for suing the police for being racist, etc. than defending in criminal trials), but they don't want that. The longer this goes, the better for him from a criminal defense standpoint.

GoFerit's comments are on point.

Maturi is waiting in hopes that charges are dropped. I cannot see another reasonable and non-sleazy reason. If he comes out Nov 5 or whenever his 'belief' moves to, and nothing has changed.. what is the reasoning? "well, yes.. serious charges, but, he's been so kind in class. I wanted to wait a few extra weeks to make sure he made it to class"?? Come on.

If the U came out anytime over the first 3 or 4 months of this, and said, 'we're going to let him play, he told us its a case of mistaken identity and he had absolutely nothing to do with this, we are standing by him, let's move on'.. fine. But this is getting ridiculous and slimy. And when a basketball team and program that is making a swift movement upwards starts getting associated with felony crimes of trying to pull women's pants down and breaking their faces, true or not, it's upsetting.

Make a damn decision.
 

Roy Christensen said:
I believe that the prosecutors office is required to share any evidence with the defense.
Click to expand...
Theoretically there's "discovery;" however, not all prosecutors are willing to share even exculpatory evidence.
I would assume that the defense attorney is willing to talk to the AD.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Unless Mbakwe has hired the attorney to represent him before both the University and trial court, I doubt the attorney would feel comfortable in talking to our AD and particularly not willing to provide an assessment of the strength of the prosecutor's case. I doubt that any conversation between Maturi and the defense attorney would be privileged and thus a smart prosecutor might subpoena Maturi to disclose the results of his investigation, including conversations with Mbakwe's attorney.
If at that point there is any doubt in his mind and considering the bearing this case will have on Maturi's reputation and the reputation of the basketball program and the University as a whole I believe that the AD would use the services of an investigator before making a decision. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
I'd probably hire a good attorney who's savvy about criminal cases and investigations. The results of his/her inquiry would be privileged as long as the department retains the attorney.
 

Easiest question on earth

No conviction = no suspension. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty. If they suspend Mbakwe for being accused of a crime, he should seek an immediate injunction.
 

Rick Mons said:
Theoretically there's "discovery;" however, not all prosecutors are willing to share even exculpatory evidence.
.
Click to expand...

Sorry Mons, if a prosecutor fails to turn over exculpatory evidence, she is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. All prosecutors, in every jurisdiction in the nation, MUST turn over each and every piece of exclupatory evidence to the defense.
 

Jay Bee said:
Man, are you people retarded? In the US COURT SYSTEM, this may be true (although actually its not - see DUI's and a multitude of other areas of US Law where this is not the case). I trust you're kidding.

Were any of you crying for the rights of the 3 gopher football players kicked off the team permanently 2 years ago, since they weren't even CHARGED with a crime?

The truth is Minnesota as a school and their sports programs have reputations to consider. And Maturi is hurting the U by his (in)actions.
Click to expand...

I am not kidding at all. If someone that looks like you starts a fire at a bar, and they kick you out of school, what is your reaction. No harm no foul?

In the football case, they were all there. They all admitted they were there and what happened. In this case, Mbakwe is claiming mistaken identity. In both cases, it is innocent until proven guilty, but your point is well taken that this is not the criminal standard we are talking about. Still, in this case, the equities point in favor of waiting for the trial.

EDIT: I would also point out that the standards used by the US Court system are created by the United States Constitution. Those are the same rights (e.g., due process) that compel me to suggest Mbakwe should seek an injunction if he is punished in any way by the U for being simply accused of this crime in this manner.
 

Handsome Pete said:
Sorry Mons, if a prosecutor fails to turn over exculpatory evidence, she is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. All prosecutors, in every jurisdiction in the nation, MUST turn over each and every piece of exclupatory evidence to the defense.
Click to expand...
HP -- that's why I wrote "theoretically." In practice, it doesn't happen all the time. I can refer you to a number of defense attorneys who will tell you about cases where that file material was not turned over.

And, yes, there should be charges of "prosecutorial misconduct" but the prosecutor usually mutters that there was a "clerical mistake" or some other error which (s)he cannot be held responsible for and nothing happens. Again, if you want some names of defense attorneys who have run into this, I can furnish them. Just send me a PM.
 

Handsome Pete said:
I am not kidding at all. If someone that looks like you starts a fire at a bar, and they kick you out of school, what is your reaction. No harm no foul?

In the football case, they were all there. They all admitted they were there and what happened. In this case, Mbakwe is claiming mistaken identity. In both cases, it is innocent until proven guilty, but your point is well taken that this is not the criminal standard we are talking about. Still, in this case, the equities point in favor of waiting for the trial.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, what? We're not talking about kicking someone out of school. We're talking about whether or not he plays and represents your school in inter-collegiate athletics. Completely unanalogous.

In the football case - they sure as HELL did not all admit 'what happened'. There were no charges. Man... so you're telling me your measurement of whether or not the U should let a player play or not play when associated with a crime... is 1) not based on whether they are charged and 2) based on what THEY, the 'associated' person says?

You're freaking nuts.

Absolutely - the equities (huh?) point in favor of waiting for the trial - so let him practice but not play. If you say, 'hey he's OK until the trial concludes' then #1 Maturi should have decided that decades ago and #2 Mbakwe and any recruit can easy deal with that by asking to continue the matter until after the season, etc.
 

Jay Bee said:
BTW - to the guy that thinks there is some super-defense team helping Trevor - his lawyer has been helping him with filings such as motions for insolvency, to be declared indigent for costs, to have the taxpayers pay for travel costs of witnesses, etc. Innocent people can and are convicted in courts of law,.. especially the indigent.
Click to expand...

I must admit that I do not know who Mbakwe's attorney is. Your comments seem to indicate that he has a court appointed attorney. Do you know this to be true?
BTW when referencing my posts you might do well to quote me rather than paraphrasing my post in your own words. You use the term super defense team. My term was competent lawyer. I try to say exactly what I mean and don't appreciate your sloppy attempt to change my meaning.
 


Rick Mons said:
HP -- that's why I wrote "theoretically." In practice, it doesn't happen all the time. I can refer you to a number of defense attorneys who will tell you about cases where that file material was not turned over.

And, yes, there should be charges of "prosecutorial misconduct" but the prosecutor usually mutters that there was a "clerical mistake" or some other error which (s)he cannot be held responsible for and nothing happens. Again, if you want some names of defense attorneys who have run into this, I can furnish them. Just send me a PM.
Click to expand...

I imagine 100% of defense attorneys have run into this in some form or another. I do know, however, that judges take the charge extremely seriously. If I am ever a judge, I would sanction the prosecutor's office so severely for even the slightest such clerical error that they would have to present their case in barrels with leather straps.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom