STrib: Charges in U football sex case still possible

[BleedGopher]

per Brandon:

It took more time, additional witness interviews and a lower legal standard for University of Minnesota investigators to reach conclusions different from the Minneapolis Police Department’s after both investigated a student’s alleged sexual assault by several Gophers football players.

Experts found fault with the MPD’s investigation but differed on whether the U’s more detailed report could lead to criminal charges against some of the 10 players who were suspended, of whom five face possible expulsion.

Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman is reviewing both investigations and will make a decision on what to do next by the end of the year, his spokesman said. If Freeman again declines to charge, as he did in early October, it would likely mean the end of any kind of criminal case.

But if he believes the university uncovered enough new evidence to prove that a crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt, there would still likely need to be another investigation to corroborate the U’s report, said Susan Gaertner, a former Ramsey County attorney now in private practice.

Gaertner said she understood why Freeman opted to review the university’s investigation. Based on just the police report, Freeman declined to file charges, citing “insufficient, admissible evidence” to prove a sexual assault occurred beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.startribune.com/charges-in-u-sex-case-still-possible/408364156/

Go Gophers!!

 

[GopherinPhilly]

politicians deserve reporters...bunch of whores.

 

[CWCWCW]

Who are the experts who found fault?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Who are the experts who found fault?

Former Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner found fault with the police report for one:

Gaertner criticized the MPD's report for drawing conclusions rather just provide an account of the interviews and evidence. The finding that the sexual contact appeared "entirely consensual" came after investigators viewed about 90 seconds of video taken by one of the players. "In my experience, that kind language goes beyod the role of an investigator, and that is to impartially gather facts and not make judgements," Gaertner said.

When she compared the two reports, Gaertner said she was also surprised that police did not interview as many witnesses as the U did. "It strikes me as Investigation 101 - that you talk to as many people as have knowledge of things they saw or heard on that night," she said.

One of the witnesses interviews by the EOAA included a football players who told the EOAA that he and others were listening at the door when he recalled "from the stuff [the woman] said, it didn't seem like she was into it. She said something and [the men present] decided it was messed up.

That statement proved to be crucial in the school's actions in the the woman's account of Sept. 2 more credible than the player's statements.

The university also uncovered evidence indicating that the players "deliberately attempted to impede the university's fact-finding efforts", according to its report.

Keven Randolph, for former University of Minnesota Police investigation, said the EOAA has an easier time getting witnesses to talk than the police. "The joke we make is that students are 19-year-old walking lawyers. They know they don't have to talk to the police," he said.

But the university has more leverage over students, who have to talk to EOAA investigators or face violating the student conduct code, which could result in anything from a warning to an expulsion.

Read more at: https://users.startribune.com/view/...ww.startribune.com&utm_source=/sports/gophers

 

[CentralGopher]

Says nothing about whether or not mistakes exist in the eoaa report.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Says nothing about whether or not mistakes exist in the eoaa report.

The credibility of the parties and both reports will be decided at the hearing from which either side can appeal. It is the American way. It's hard to understand why so many GopherHolers don't want a hearing before the EOAA. After all, they are the group that cleared Reggie Lynch to play basketball for the U after the police dropped the charges against him.

 

[supadupafly]

The credibility of the parties and both reports will be decided at the hearing from which either side can appeal. It is the American way. It's hard to understand why so many GopherHolers don't want a hearing before the EOAA. After all, they are the group that cleared Reggie Lynch to play basketball for the U after the police dropped the charges against him.

Actually, no. IMO, the American way is justice through the actual police, actual prosecutors and actual courts. That happened here and the police and county prosecutor made the decision to not pursue charges.

This EOAA deal is a nothing more than a glorified kangaroo court created by activists, and enabled by factions of spineless politicians, to make themselves feel powerful and "righteous".

P.S. Is Hennepin County attorney Mike Freeman "reviewing" the matter again via the addition of the slanted EOAA "reports" not a type of unfair double-jeopardy here? Seems fishy.

 

[Spoofin]

So former Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner criticized the MPD's report for drawing conclusions rather just providing an account of the interviews and evidence.

Seems to be a reasonable complaint until she didn't find that in the EOAA report. The entire EOAA report, as stated by the crack-pots in their own report, is based on opinions and assumptions of what they felt was most likely. I don't even have to Google this lady to know what she is all about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Maximus]

Actually, no. IMO, the American way is justice through the actual police, actual prosecutors and actual courts. That happened here and the police and county prosecutor made the decision to not pursue charges.

"Paterno reported it to his superiors!"

 

[supadupafly]

"Paterno reported it to his superiors!"

this matter and the penn state matter are in NO way similar. not even close. a complete straw man......and an extremely weak one at that.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

Sorry I don't take the word of a failed politician as an 'expert' - she's a partisan much like the entire EOAA board.

 

[CoMn]

And again....why was Coyle called before the guys were interviewed? Wink-Wink-Nudge-Nudge...your guys gang raped a cheerleader...I'll give you three days to cover everything up. Who gives alleged criminals a week to get their stories straight, lawyer up and destroy evidence? Biased police is why entities like the EOAA is needed . We have a coach who thinks his team is comprised of a bunch of stand up guys....glad to see the Trib report from an expert what I have been screaming on this board...that it is the police that were biased and not doing their job that will probably result in at least 5 rapists to avoid serving time. But what the cops couldn't do, thanks to the EOAA, is allow them and the football program that enables them to get off scott free. Hopefully Claeys will be fired (and I was a supporter this entire season) and we will be rid of all 10 of the players, not a one of whom did a thing to prevent a rape but instead took steps to cover it up.

 

[Iceland12]

And again....why was Coyle called before the guys were interviewed? Wink-Wink-Nudge-Nudge...your guys gang raped a cheerleader...I'll give you three days to cover everything up. Who gives alleged criminals a week to get their stories straight, lawyer up and destroy evidence? Biased police is why entities like the EOAA is needed . We have a coach who thinks his team is comprised of a bunch of stand up guys....glad to see the Trib report from an expert what I have been screaming on this board...that it is the police that were biased and not doing their job that will probably result in at least 5 rapists to avoid serving time. But what the cops didn't do thanks to the EOAA is allow them and the football program that enables them to get off scott free. Hopefully Claeys will be fired (and I was a supporter this entire season) and we will be rid of all 10 of the players, not a one of whom did a thing to prevent a rape but instead took steps to cover it up.

"Just go ahead and hang all of them. Who cares who did what!"

 

[CentralGopher]

The credibility of the parties and both reports will be decided at the hearing from which either side can appeal. It is the American way. It's hard to understand why so many GopherHolers don't want a hearing before the EOAA. After all, they are the group that cleared Reggie Lynch to play basketball for the U after the police dropped the charges against him.

Not what I was saying at all. Just an observation that a so called expert declared mistakes in a pd investigation but not a report that contained admission that guesses and assumptions were made. I found that odd and a little ine sided.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

The credibility of the parties and both reports will be decided at the hearing from which either side can appeal. It is the American way. It's hard to understand why so many GopherHolers don't want a hearing before the EOAA. After all, they are the group that cleared Reggie Lynch to play basketball for the U after the police dropped the charges against him.

Remember when you judged the players guilty before reading the EOAA report? We all do. You are a disgrace.

 

[jonnyganas]

Are interviews with players in the report that were obtained without the presence of legal representation admissible in court?

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[DoubleAlum]

Actually, no. IMO, the American way is justice through the actual police, actual prosecutors and actual courts. That happened here and the police and county prosecutor made the decision to not pursue charges.

This EOAA deal is a nothing more than a glorified kangaroo court created by activists, and enabled by factions of spineless politicians, to make themselves feel powerful and "righteous".

P.S. Is Hennepin County attorney Mike Freeman "reviewing" the matter again via the addition of the slanted EOAA "reports" not a type of unfair double-jeopardy here? Seems fishy.

Serious question. Do you ever look at things from both perspectives? Did you read the article above? The U interviewed many more individuals than the police. There is a decent chance the police were derelict. A former prosecutor thought the police did some odd stuff. A very incriminating witness statement came up after the police completed their investigation. And you conclude the case should be closed now? I truly believe you have no problem with all this even if there was an assault. You couldn't care less.

 

[Deleted_User]

There is no double jeopardy as the case has yet to even be held in a single Minnesota court. The EOAA is not a court. They are a U of M panel to investigate and recommend if school sanctions should be made against U of M policy. And, the U will establish a larger panel to review the findings of the EOAA and take additional testimony as well. And, that is not double jeopardy.

What M. Freeman is doing is taking additional accounts into consideration. He can do that from the police report. He can do that from the EOAA report. He can ask a grand jury to review the existing evidence and that does not constitute double jeopardy. He can interview witnesses himself. None of this rises to the level of double jeopardy.

Due process is afforded to any student that attends the U and is put under an EOAA investigation. Except, there is no Miranda warning. But, Cleary, a law under Title IX requires the U allow students the right to counsel. The U has that available to all EOAA investigations. And, any Title IX attorney knows that already and would kick in any U door not allowing legal counsel presence. The U did not disallow any attorney representation. They in no way impeded the presence of any attorney. So, the due process argument is a bit flat and inflammatory. The students are receiving additional hearings as put forth by Cleary and U policies.

Anything that is untainted may be brought forth by Freeman in a court of law. And, it all depends on the judge on whether it will be admissible if it comes from the EOAA. Just because it is stamped with the EOAA symbol does not mean it is automatically inadmissible.

Just remember this about lawyers, they offer advice and may position it as fact. But, don't rely on it because half the time every lawyers case in a court of law is lost. It still comes down to how a judge interprets the law independently of the advice given to clients from lawyers.

County Attorney Freeman has the obligation to review any information forwarded to his office in regards to a case and it is his decision as to when a case will proceed. The case was never declined by Freeman. What Freeman did was just not bring charges forward to a court of law to schedule a hearing. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

There is no double jeopardy as the case has yet to even be held in a single Minnesota court. The EOAA is not a court. They are a U of M panel to investigate and recommend if school sanctions should be made against U of M policy. And, the U will establish a larger panel to review the findings of the EOAA and take additional testimony as well. And, that is not double jeopardy.

What M. Freeman is doing is taking additional accounts into consideration. He can do that from the police report. He can do that from the EOAA report. He can ask a grand jury to review the existing evidence and that does not constitute double jeopardy. He can interview witnesses himself. None of this rises to the level of double jeopardy.

Due process is afforded to any student that attends the U and is put under an EOAA investigation. Except, there is no Miranda warning. But, Cleary, a law under Title IX requires the U allow students the right to counsel. The U has that available to all EOAA investigations. And, any Title IX attorney knows that already and would kick in any U door not allowing legal counsel presence. The U did not disallow any attorney representation. They in no way impeded the presence of any attorney. So, the due process argument is a bit flat and inflammatory. The students are receiving additional hearings as put forth by Cleary and U policies.

Anything that is untainted may be brought forth by Freeman in a court of law. And, it all depends on the judge on whether it will be admissible if it comes from the EOAA. Just because it is stamped with the EOAA symbol does not mean it is automatically inadmissible.

Just remember this about lawyers, they offer advice and may position it as fact. But, don't rely on it because half the time every lawyers case in a court of law is lost. It still comes down to how a judge interprets the law independently of the advice given to clients from lawyers.

County Attorney Freeman has the obligation to review any information forwarded to his office in regards to a case and it is his decision as to when a case will proceed. The case was never declined by Freeman. What Freeman did was just not bring charges forward to a court of law to schedule a hearing. Nothing more and nothing less.

You almost always win or lose cases based on facts, not interpretations of the law. Most cases, you could ask both attorneys "who do you think will win?" and usually both sides will come to almost the exact same conclusion. It is why corporate cases settle all of the time. It isn't a different interpretation of the law. We all understand that laws can be interpreted multiple ways, it isn't that you're "wrong" if you're forced to push a certain interpretation for the benefit of your client. It's called advocacy.

That is a far cry from saying that lawyers only know the law like 50% of the time because they have to lose in court 50% of the time. It's also a strange comment for the transactional lawyers. The prosecutors better win 50% of the time (do you think it's because they understand the law better)?

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Serious question. Do you ever look at things from both perspectives? Did you read the article above? The U interviewed many more individuals than the police. There is a decent chance the police were derelict. A former prosecutor thought the police did some odd stuff. A very incriminating witness statement came up after the police completed their investigation. And you conclude the case should be closed now? I truly believe you have no problem with all this even if there was an assault. You couldn't care less.

Jeopardy attaches when jury gets sworn in. I don't know why Dean felt the need to walk though different things a Prosecutor can do (he can make a cup of coffee, no jeopardy), it's as simple as, until the jury is sworn in or judge starts hearing evidence (bench trial) in a trial determining guilt/innocence, jeopardy has not attached. There is absolutely no double jeopardy issue in this case.

Freeman is smart enough to not rely on the EoAA report. That could never be a source of evidence, but it does not mean that it isn't a terrible place to go looking in the same areas. The nature of the report will really put Freeman in a difficult situation because it really won't be a strong piece of evidence to use to perjure a witness.

I don't mean to be rude, but I really think Dean just googled Due Process. I have no idea why he would bring up Miranda Warnings. That paragraph looks like a dog Constitution Law case book and threw up on. It's literally Due Process word salad.

To sum up the issue of the county's involvement, they are not violating any rights by re-examining the case. The EoAA report won't be a source of direct evidence by the county. They may interview the same people and that sort of thing. However, in light of the new statements and stuff, it makes sense for the county to give it a second look.

This is actually a nearly impossible situation for the county. It would be really difficult to imagine there is going to be very much new evidence. There could be (the texts maybe?, maybe more videos), however, the statements made by the players are going to be really tough to get in. From a strategic standpoint, what they should have done is make arrests and try to get people to talk.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Are interviews with players in the report that were obtained without the presence of legal representation admissible in court?

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

I wonder about that too.

This parallel justice systems thing brings up so many weird questions.