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

[Gogogopher]

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

You can plead the 5th in a civil case, or in a congressional hearing. You don't have to be charged with a crime.

 

[Mick Turition]

Where is Coyle? Is he even in the state? HUUUUGE scandal in athletic department and.....a joint press release is all the public gets from this empty suit?

 

[PMWinSTP]

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.

I agree the EOAA has demonstrated it needs oversight but it does not have enforcement powers, it recommends, so that would be Coyle and Kaler, they made the decision to punish.

 

[Twinsfan007]

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.

As a college student right now I can attest that I know people that can drink a whole handle of vodka, etc. and still be fine. I feel sorry for their livers but that's there choice. It might be surprising to hear that someone had 6 shots and can still move around but it's not uncommon.

 

[cheeseheadgophfan]

You can plead the 5th in a civil case, or in a congressional hearing. You don't have to be charged with a crime.

Of course you can, but when you plead the fifth prior to even being charged, it can be admissible as consciousness of guilt. That's all I'm trying to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Livingat45north]

Just more questions:
-- Who or what triggers the EOAA investigation? Is that something that automatically occurs when the initial police report was filed?
-- Who or what sets the timing of the release of the EOAA recommendations? It appears on the surface that the timing was made to have the maximum negative impact on the football team -- if they'd waited two more weeks this wouldn't be making much at all in the way of national publicity.
-- Who or what sets the timing of the U of M acting on the EOAA's recommendations? Legally, did the UofM administrators have to act right away on those recommendations, or could they have waited a couple of weeks (e.g., by simply asking for clarification on some part of the report).

 

[Jack jones]

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.

The above comments are absolutely correct x1000

 

[Taji34]

Well, the report is being release tonight. Hope it sheds some light.

 

[justthefacts]

Just more questions:
-- Who or what triggers the EOAA investigation? Is that something that automatically occurs when the initial police report was filed?
-- Who or what sets the timing of the release of the EOAA recommendations? It appears on the surface that the timing was made to have the maximum negative impact on the football team -- if they'd waited two more weeks this wouldn't be making much at all in the way of national publicity.
-- Who or what sets the timing of the U of M acting on the EOAA's recommendations? Legally, did the UofM administrators have to act right away on those recommendations, or could they have waited a couple of weeks (e.g., by simply asking for clarification on some part of the report).

http://www.thedailygopher.com/2016/...vestigation-boycott-understanding-the-process

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Well, the report is being release tonight. Hope it sheds some light.

Yes it does. What the report says is that everything in this thread is a pile of crap. I wouldn't rely on prosecutors opinion about a case like this anymore that than I would for a defense attorney. They both approach the issues from a very narrow perspective. They find it very hard to consider both sides of case. It is one of the hazards of doing the work they do.

 

[minny01]

Yes it does. What the report says is that everything in this thread is a pile of crap. I wouldn't rely on prosecutors opinion about a case like this anymore that than I would for a defense attorney. They both approach the issues from a very narrow perspective. They find it very hard to consider both sides of case. It is one of the hazards of doing the work they do.

Buddy if there is anyone that has a narrow view of this, it's you.

 

[edma0012]

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.

Great analysis-

I missed the taking the 5th thing- that is really strange.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Buddy if there is anyone that has a narrow view of this, it's you.

Let's go have a beer. I guarantee you will change your mind about me. I am buying. If you like to play golf we will probably become lifelong buddies.