Question on the timeline between original suspensions and EEOA invesitigation

[Triple D]

This has been bothering me and maybe some of you are more knowledgeable on the timeline here.

I am wondering if the players had already retained Hutton as their attorney prior to the EEOA investigation, I belive they hired him pretty soon after the original suspensions to represent them on the Restraining Orders but I'm not sure when the EEOA investigations were conducted. If Hutton had already been retained for the RO's why in the heck wasn't he in attendance at these player interviews when the alleged victim had her attorney present?

I know there is information out there that the players felt misled on the scope of the investigation by the EEOA investigators but if it were me, I would be leery as heck to provide the investigators any potential self incriminating evidence if she had an attorney present and I didn't. If I'm the first one interviewed I let everyone else on the team know that she had an attorney present so you may want to get one.

Does anyone know why Hutton or any other attorney representing the players was not present? Because if the EEOA investigator led the players to believe they didn't need one present even though they had a right to one according to the EEOA documents stating that they had a right to one that's a pretty big deal.

 

[atsgopher]

This has been bothering me and maybe some of you are more knowledgeable on the timeline here.

I am wondering if the players had already retained Hutton as their attorney prior to the EEOA investigation, I belive they hired him pretty soon after the original suspensions to represent them on the Restraining Orders but I'm not sure when the EEOA investigations were conducted. If Hutton had already been retained for the RO's why in the heck wasn't he in attendance at these player interviews when the alleged victim had her attorney present?

I know there is information out there that the players felt misled on the scope of the investigation by the EEOA investigators but if it were me, I would be leery as heck to provide the investigators any potential self incriminating evidence if she had an attorney present and I didn't. If I'm the first one interviewed I let everyone else on the team know that she had an attorney present so you may want to get one.

Does anyone know why Hutton or any other attorney representing the players was not present? Because if the EEOA investigator led the players to believe they didn't need one present even though they had a right to one according to the EEOA documents stating that they had a right to one that's a pretty big deal.

This is a fantastic point. One of which should be noted by both people that support the girl and the players.

The EEOA investigation began on September 23rd. They were also present at the restraining order hearing. Thus, they had knowledge of Hutton.

I can only speculate, but I would imagine the settlement in the restraining order portion could have misled some of them.

However, I know that a fair coin could come up heads 100 times in a row, if it did, I'd sure be suspicious of the "fairness" of that coin.

Should have been addressed in the report explicitly. I.E. A2 was informed of rights.... yada yada, and declined the EEOA's offer to have his attorney present during questioning.

 

[Jack jones]

I wouldn't expect the EOAA to suggest or recommend to the accused that they have a lawyer present. As I see them, they are more of a "gotcha" committee than they are a group concerned about being fair in their investigations.

 

[nsmike]

I posted the reference in the due process thread, if the accusser had an attorney or other representitive during the investigation, the respondents were supposed to also. There have been statments made that, the EOAA specifically told some of the players that they didn't need a representitive, this is a violation of Title IX guidlines. This is the real basis of the lack of due process claims made by the football team.

 

[Triple D]

TITLE IX COMPLAINT PROCESS

• Anyone can report Title IX violations committed by a University student. These violations should be reported to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA], for investigation. University of Minnesota employees in the University of Minnesota Police Department, The Aurora Center (TAC), the Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (OSCAI), or Housing and Residential Life (HRL) will refer students to EOAA to submit a report.

• A trained EOAA staff person will thoroughly investigate the report. The investigator will first interview the reporting party to gather as much information as possible about the incident. The investigator will also interview relevant witnesses including those provided by the reporting party, before contacting the accused student. The EOAA office will notify the accused student writing about the complaint, available resources and to schedule an interview to discuss the alleged violations.

• The EOAA investigator will interview the accused student and any witnesses identified by the accused student. It might also be necessary to meet with the reporting party a second time to ask any additional questions that arose during the investigation process.

• EOAA will also collect information such as copies of text messages, email correspondence, VM recordings, medical reports, video recordings from surveillance cameras when available, and any other relevant evidence.

• EOAA will explain the process to both parties.

• After all the interviews are completed, EOAA will prepare a report in which they analyze the facts and determine whether or not the accused student is responsible for violating the UMN Board of Regents Student Conduct Code based on the preponderance of evidence. (This means that based upon the information gathered during the investigation it is more likely than not that the policy was or was not violated.) EOAA will then forward the investigation report to OSCAI.

• OSCAI sends an email to the reporting party and the accused student informing them of the outcome of the investigation. The email will include a determination as to whether the student conduct code was violated, and a proposed informal resolution. In this letter, OSCAI notifies both the reporting party and the accused student of their right to have the case heard before a formal hearing panel consisting of faculty, staff and students if either of the parties are dissatisfied with the outcome The letter will also indicate that either party can request a copy of the investigation report The parties have five days to request a formal hearing. (If either party requests a meeting with OSCAI to discuss the informal resolution, the time to request a formal hearing will be extended to 5 days from the date of the meeting.

• Both parties can choose to have an advocate, and or an attorney/advisor and may request one extension to the deadline of no more than 10 days.)

The bolded part bothers me. If the EOAA says it was too early in the process for them to have advised the players that they had the option of an attorney then why did the accuser get to have her attorney present, if indeed that is accurate.

Why did none of the players request an extension so they could get an attorney? Seems odd that not a single one of the 15-20 interviewed did not think of requesting one, unless it was misrepresented to them how the process worked and they did not need to worry as it was an informal investigation.

 

[scools12]

I posted the reference in the due process thread, if the accusser had an attorney or other representitive during the investigation, the respondents were supposed to also. There have been statments made that, the EOAA specifically told some of the players that they didn't need a representitive, this is a violation of Title IX guidlines. This is the real basis of the lack of due process claims made by the football team.

Curious as to who made those statements?

I find it hard to believe that the EOAA would not informed all parties of their rights with regards to the investigation. I would say it's highly unlikely the players interviewed for the investigation has the process misrepresented to them. There would be absolutely no reason to have the EOAA or the University put themselves in that kind of legal position. Unless you buy the whole "witch hunt" and "out to get" the football team theory then of course that is exactly what they did.

 

[Iceland12]

Curious as to who made those statements?

I find it hard to believe that the EOAA would not informed all parties of their rights with regards to the investigation. I would say it's highly unlikely the players interviewed for the investigation has the process misrepresented to them. There would be absolutely no reason to have the EOAA or the University put themselves in that kind of legal position. Unless you bye the whole "witch hunt" and "out to get" the football team theory then of course that is exactly what they did.

Didn't Mr.Winfield said one of the things that made him angriest is that his son was told he was being brought to the committee as a witness only, and was not of of the targets of the investigation?

 

[Triple D]

Curious as to who made those statements?

I find it hard to believe that the EOAA would not informed all parties of their rights with regards to the investigation. I would say it's highly unlikely the players interviewed for the investigation has the process misrepresented to them. There would be absolutely no reason to have the EOAA or the University put themselves in that kind of legal position. Unless you buy the whole "witch hunt" and "out to get" the football team theory then of course that is exactly what they did.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that out of the 20 or so players interviewed that not a single one thought to seek out an attorney, especially if the Title IX Complaint process was presented to them and they had a chance to read it? This screams to me that none of them got the chance to read how the complaint process works, were presented with that document, or it was misrepresented to them. In today's litigious society none of the 20+ players and/or witnesses thought I better consult an attorney? Something smells fishy here.

 

[scools12]

Doesn't it seem odd to you that out of the 20 or so players interviewed that not a single one thought to seek out an attorney, especially if the Title IX Complaint process was presented to them and they had a chance to read it? This screams to me that none of them got the chance to read how the complaint process works, were presented with that document, or it was misrepresented to them. In today's litigious society none of the 20+ players and/or witnesses thought I better consult an attorney? Something smells fishy here.

Do we know for fact that none of the 20 sought out an attorney or had an advisor or advocate present? Is there a link to who made that statement or where that was reported?

I don't remember that claim being made or reported if it was.

As you said in this litigious society the U with all their lawyers would actual put themselves in that type of vulnerable legal position? I don't see that happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GopherinPhilly]

One of the biggest issues of investigative bias is that they interview the accuser then the witnesses identified by the accuser then the accused. This can lead to confirmation bias against the accused before they even have a chance to respond to a claim or present their witness list.

 

[gopherdudepart2]

Do we know for fact that none of the 20 sought out an attorney or had an advisor or advocate present? Is there a link to who made that statement or where that was reported?

I don't remember that claim being made or reported if it was.

As you said in this litigious society the U with all their lawyers would actual put themselves in that type of vulnerable legal position? I don't see that happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It will come out, in some form of hearing, if any of the Title IX investigators didn't advise any of the witnesses to have an adviser, or counsel present. Especially since the U student that was the accuser was allowed to have counsel present when answering questions. They were obligated under University code, to tell each student that after allowing the first witness and "accuser" that possibility of counsel present that they were also entitled to that as part of this review and investigative process. They would have also had to advise about any of the interview being recorded on a recording device, and would have had to have gained written consent to recording this situation. Otherwise it is he said or she said about verbal consent to the interview, if any recorded investigative material would have been allowed to be used as part of this investigation. It is not as in depth as a civil or criminal proceeding, but the Title IX Investigation must include similar approaches to civil discovery, and criminal investigative process as a result of the title IX law. Because of that, those equal protections aspects for due process are relevant even in a student code of conduct and Title IX investigation. I am hopeful that the U used lawyers, and professional investigators as part of this Title IX investigation process for the EoAA but for some reason I am just a little skeptical.

 

[Mulligan]

Didn't Mr.Winfield said one of the things that made him angriest is that his sone was told he was being brought to the committee as a witness only, and was not of of the targets of the investigation?

More information could have come up later that implicated him. He might have said something himself. Hell, he also might have misled Dad. I understand young people do that.

I also find it hard to believe that EOAA wouldn't be following the guidelines. They aren't stupid. They had to know that this would make headlines and are going to cover themselves. Which also leads me to suspect it might have been timed to make an impact in a way that nothing could be pinned on them. "Oh, is losing 10 players for this bowl game--whatever that is--going to cause problems for the football team?"

Speaking of covering yourself, people are convinced Kaler left the U open by referring to the lady as a "victim." I haven't followed everything, but the time I saw Kaler addressing this, it was to refer to her as "alleged victim."

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Curious as to who made those statements?

I find it hard to believe that the EOAA would not informed all parties of their rights with regards to the investigation. I would say it's highly unlikely the players interviewed for the investigation has the process misrepresented to them. There would be absolutely no reason to have the EOAA or the University put themselves in that kind of legal position. Unless you buy the whole "witch hunt" and "out to get" the football team theory then of course that is exactly what they did.

Why would you find that hard to believe? You didn't read the report? Character assassination of the players (text messages). Injecting personal inferences into words, actions of a one-sided testimony. Finding an absurdly unreliable alleged victim more credible than the players based on extremely flimsy reasoning (for example Djam was found not credible for not recalling the exact sequence of shirt removal).

The EEOA doesn't allow for virtually any of the trappings of civil or criminal trial. It is designed to force the defendants to prove their innocence.

You don't see a problem with that? Take off you UofM homer glasses and forget about football for a second.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

More information could have come up later that implicated him. He might have said something himself. Hell, he also might have misled Dad. I understand young people do that.

I also find it hard to believe that EOAA wouldn't be following the guidelines. They aren't stupid. They had to know that this would make headlines and are going to cover themselves. Which also leads me to suspect it might have been timed to make an impact in a way that nothing could be pinned on them. "Oh, is losing 10 players for this bowl game--whatever that is--going to cause problems for the football team?"

Exactly right. One of the most common reasons judges use to overturn a Student Code of Conduct hearing is that the school didn't follow their own for procedures for providing due process to their students.

 

[justthefacts]

TITLE IX COMPLAINT PROCESS


• After all the interviews are completed, EOAA will prepare a report in which they analyze the facts and determine whether or not the accused student is responsible for violating the UMN Board of Regents Student Conduct Code based on the preponderance of evidence. (This means that based upon the information gathered during the investigation it is more likely than not that the policy was or was not violated.) EOAA will then forward the investigation report to OSCAI.

• OSCAI sends an email to the reporting party and the accused student informing them of the outcome of the investigation. The email will include a determination as to whether the student conduct code was violated, and a proposed informal resolution. In this letter, OSCAI notifies both the reporting party and the accused student of their right to have the case heard before a formal hearing panel consisting of faculty, staff and students if either of the parties are dissatisfied with the outcome The letter will also indicate that either party can request a copy of the investigation report The parties have five days to request a formal hearing. (If either party requests a meeting with OSCAI to discuss the informal resolution, the time to request a formal hearing will be extended to 5 days from the date of the meeting.

• Both parties can choose to have an advocate, and or an attorney/advisor and may request one extension to the deadline of no more than 10 days.)
.

I think what people are missing is the order of operations. This post lays out all the steps that are taken. It purposely puts the portion about an attorney AFTER the portion describing the formal hearing, which is all purposely AFTER the report.

The hearing hasn't happened yet, thus the reason they haven't had an attorney present for the interviews.

 

[Triple D]

I think what people are missing is the order of operations. This post lays out all the steps that are taken. It purposely puts the portion about an attorney AFTER the portion describing the formal hearing, which is all purposely AFTER the report.

The hearing hasn't happened yet, thus the reason they haven't had an attorney present for the interviews.

Which bolsters the players claim about not having due process. If the accuser had an attorney from the get go including during the investigations and the players possibly weren't afforded the same opportunity or told they didn't need one when they were being investigated the players have a legitimate gripe.

This will all come out in time I suppose, strange that there have been no stories on how the players were notified, when, and if were notified of their right to an attorney right away like the accuser. The local media needs to do some more investigating into this. I have a feeling that this is one of the main reasons why the players are so upset. If the Retainer Agreements and presumably Notice of Appearance's for the 4-5 original players were signed with Hutton before their Title IX interviews were conducted they could have a legitimate argument that Hutton should have been at those interviews.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

You guys have seen enough crime shows on TV to know that when cops investigate crimes they never tell witnesses or suspects they have a right to an attorney unless the they ask for one. Cops only do it AFTER an arrest is made and the suspect is in custody. Similarly, during the EOAA investigation, the interviewers had no obligation to tell the players they could have an attorney present if they wanted. But the players could have had one if they were smart enough to demand it, or if the attorney representing the original four players had the foresight to recommend that the other players not agree to be interviewed without one.

 

[justthefacts]

Which bolsters the players claim about not having due process. If the accuser had an attorney from the get go including during the investigations and the players possibly weren't afforded the same opportunity or told they didn't need one when they were being investigated the players have a legitimate gripe.

This will all come out in time I suppose, strange that there have been no stories on how the players were notified, when, and if were notified of their right to an attorney right away like the accuser. The local media needs to do some more investigating into this. I have a feeling that this is one of the main reasons why the players are so upset. If the Retainer Agreements and presumably Notice of Appearance's for the 4-5 original players were signed with Hutton before their Title IX interviews were conducted they could have a legitimate argument that Hutton should have been at those interviews.

As I said in another thread, you can complain about how FAIR the process is, but you can't really complain about the legality of the process. It's consistent with Minnesota policies, broader educational norms, Title IX guidelines, and even case law.

 

[nsmike]

It appers that I need to post this again!
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/lis...4-title-ix.pdf Page 26 of the document!
It appears that this may be a real issue.

 

[gopherdudepart2]

You guys have seen enough crime shows on TV to know that when cops investigate crimes they never tell witnesses or suspects they have a right to an attorney unless the they ask for one. Cops only do it AFTER an arrest is made and the suspect is in custody. Similarly, during the EOAA investigation, the interviewers had no obligation to tell the players they could have an attorney present if they wanted. But the players could have had one if they were smart enough to demand it, or if the attorney representing the original four players had the foresight to recommend that the other players not agree to be interviewed without one.

Except this part under the title IX law. "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 their advisors to speak or otherwise participate in the proceedings must also apply equally. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/lis...4-title-ix.pdf As nsmike said, once they allowed the alleged Victim this opportunity first, then they were required to notify the rest of the witnesses that they could be afforded the same opportunity of counsel.
"IF" and it is an "If" they didn't do so, they have a real issue and problem on how they collected evidence and statements. May be a technicality of the law but it is a large one.