After wading through the Title IX documentation, it appears that the U can investigate off campus incidents, if it makes a finding of a continuing 'hostile envionment'. All my reading did come up with this from section F1
If the school permits one party to have lawyers or other advisors at any stage of the proceedings, it must do so equally for both parties. Any school-imposed restrictions on the ability of lawyers or ther advisors to speak or otherwise participate in the proceedings must also apply equally. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf
It appears that this may be a real issue.
Some if not many of the accused have already indicated they were not afforded the right to an adviser or to legal counsel(and also were not counseled and advised of this right for the adviser or counsel to participate in the proceedings and interviews of the title IX investigation led by the EoAA investigators. This portion of the EoAA investigation that the alleged victim was reported to be represented by her legal counsel during all questioning by interviewers has been reported by the media. By being student athletes they are not public figures as professional athletes would be considered, to have there likenesses distributed, and reported to the media as having committed an assualt as this EoAA report indicates.
This is going to be a major problem for the University in this Title IX investigation process, especially during the appeals process aspect of these recommendation letters sent to President Kaler and the athletic department. That part as professionals is what will also open them up to legal and civil challenges by the accused group of players attorney. Esquire Hutton should be playing close attention to any portion of the title IX investigation where the accused were or were not advised of the right to participation of an adviser during questioning. Simpy signing the code of conduct does not waive the right to counsel being present during accusation of mis-conduct interviews.
He Hutton should be requesting all written, and electronic correspondence and recording evidence used by this EoAA investigation group, any and all emails as it pertains within that department to communication about the investigation to the athletic department. ANY evidence of verbal recordings if of interviews, that students waived or did not waive this right or provision to having representation present. All correspondence this office had with President Kaler electronically even, the AD Coyle.
Even for this University code of conduct thing and title IX investigation with the announcement of the suspensions they are going to have this right with all of the media exposure and controversy this situation has created. If any University investigator doesn't have a sworn statement that the accused students waived this right to an adviser to be present or legal counsel participation in the interview process, then they are going to have problems of a torts nature for any future legal and civil proceedings. This is really why the University should have left even these conduct violations investigations as just a violation of team rules statement in the media or press release, and the actual title IX investigations up to the University of Minnesota police. Let the professionals that are aware of confirmation bias, legal investigative procedures and questioning, when advising witnesses even of their rights to not self incriminate during a conduct hearing. President Kaler should have never used the term sexual assault when discussing the players suspensions this Saturday when he did that Ad Hoc interview with KSTP, doesn't matter if one of the accused released the report, he had no business making that comment or suggestion of sexual assault to the media of another University of Minnesota student. This is a term that Kaler should have never used with KSTP, conduct violation was enough.
He Kaler is going to put the board of regents in a tough spot when it is all said and done. Someone who dismissed an employee for egregious behavior against a media member and fellow University employees should have learned and already known, how crucial it was to have limited comment and exposure to comments about this situation involving the students.
If I were Hutton I would be finding out if one of the 10 players he is currently representing is the one that leaked this EoAA report to the media. In that instance he may have to recuse from being counsel for that person because he may need to turn the rest of the 9 against the player that possibly leaked the report. He better find out from Mr Wolfson if one of his group of 10 tweeted the report or sent the entire report to KSTP. That is going to be relevant to the case of the other 9, from a civil and torts perspective. If I were a reporter or KSTP, I hope they have a signed waiver of consent and permission to publish on their website the leaked report if it was given to them by one of the students and accused from the media story.
Anyone from a student perspective of the Title IX accused, that may have leaked the report to the media may need to seek a different lawyer or legal counsel from the rest of the group of accused in the title IX report. I am clearly not giving legal advice here, just sharing my perspective of some of the things I might do if I were involved in a situation like this.
