Category: Sexual Assault

Hartford Sex Hearing Marred by Actions of Lawmakers and Staffers

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 18, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Recalling Campus Kangaroo Courts,

Hartford Sex Hearing Marred by Actions of Lawmakers and Staffers

WASHINGTON / February 18, 2020 – A February 13 hearing designed to elicit public comment on a bill regarding campus sexual assault was marred by unprofessional behavior exhibited by several lawmakers and staffers. Convened by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, the hearing aimed to obtain public input into the proposed Act Concerning Sexual Misconduct on College Campuses, SB 19 (1).

Several representatives of Connecticut colleges testified in opposition to the bill, saying it duplicated existing university policies and removed their flexibility to address unique circumstances (2).

The SAVE witness highlighted recent judicial decisions against Yale, Quinnipiac, Sacred Heart, and the University of Connecticut, suggesting that “Connecticut may be the worst state in the nation for campus fairness.” SAVE noted the opinion of federal Judge Michael Shea who wrote, “UConn’s procedures for investigating alleged misconduct and imposing discipline are so one-sided that the accused was denied an opportunity to present a meaningful defense.”

The SAVE representative acknowledged that sexual misconduct is a major problem on Connecticut campuses but concluded, “SB 19 would trample on fairness, and perpetuate campus Kangaroo Courts. It is not the answer to a serious issue plaguing Connecticut’s higher educational system.”

Although she was one of the first to sign up to testify, when she was finally allowed to deliver her testimony, only 30% of the Committee members were present. During the allotted 3-minute period, the timer prematurely sounded at roughly two minutes, distracting the presentation.

Upon completion of the testimony, one Committee member wondered out loud if the SAVE presenter represented a “misogynistic” group, a comment that was implausible on the surface since the SAVE witness was female.

In contrast, seeking a constructive bi-partisan solution to address campus sexual assault, a third Committee member posed thoughtful questions how Connecticut lawmakers can “get this right” as they propose legislation around this issue.

SAVE’s full testimony is available online (3). A video of the testimony is also available online, beginning at 2:31:10.

SAVE urges Connecticut legislators to assure future hearings are conducted in a professional and impartial manner, and to work so both identified victims and accused students are treated in a respectful and professional manner in campus proceedings.

Citations:

SAVE – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – is leading the national policy movement for campus fairness, due process, and the presumption of innocence.

PR: Urgent Need for Lawmakers to Stop Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 3, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Urgent Need for Lawmakers to Stop Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / February 3, 2020 – As evidence continues to mount of inept campus administrators and biased adjudications, SAVE urges lawmakers to take prompt steps to reform college sex tribunals, sometimes referred to derisively as “kangaroo courts.”

The federal Department of Education issued in 2011 a policy directing campus disciplinary committees to handle all allegations of sexual assault, including felony-level incidents (1). But problems with the new approach became immediately obvious, as the number of complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights soon increased by more than five-fold (2).

Three recent incidents again illustrate the urgent need for reform:

On January 23, it was reported that the University of Idaho agreed to a $160,000 payment to Mairin Jameson. When Jameson had been sexually harassed and assaulted by a member of the school’s football team, school officials told her the school had no authority to act (3).

Two days later, federal Judge Michael Shea ordered the University of Connecticut to reinstate a male student who had been subjected to a biased campus hearing. The judge found the campus disciplinary committee denied the male student “the right to respond to the accusations against him in a meaningful way, because he had no opportunity to question or confront two of Roe’s witnesses on whose statements the hearing officers chose to rely.” (4)

Then on January 26, Columbia University in New York was in the news when campus adjudicators failed to consider as evidence a 30-minute audio recording suggesting the female was the perpetrator, not the victim, of a sexual assault. Former student Ben Feibleman is now suing Columbia U. for $25 million (5).

The Dept. of Education is expected to issue a new sexual assault regulation in the near future. The Independent Women’s Forum recently announced its support of the new policy, saying, “Campuses have a legal and moral obligation to investigate and address claims of sexual harassment and assault; but they also have an obligation to investigate claims objectively, without presuming the guilt of the accused, and with respect for due process.” (6)

This week, SAVE is launching a month-long campaign designed to raise awareness among lawmakers, campus administrators, and the public about the serious injustices confronting college students. The campaign hashtag is #StopKangarooCourts.

Citations:

SAVE – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is leading the national policy movement to restore due process, stop false allegations, and protect all victims.

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

End to the Campus Kangaroo: Department of Education Needs to Promptly Implement New Title IX Regulation

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 12, 2020

Constitutionally rooted due process is one of the foundations of American society, because it protects individuals from government over-reach and from false allegations.

In 1975, Judge Henry Friendly identified key due process procedures.[1]

An unbiased tribunal.
Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
The right to know opposing evidence.
The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision.

In 2011 the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) pre-emptively issued a Dear Colleague Letter on campus sexual assault.[2] The document was unlawful in the sense that it violated the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it severely weakened constitutionally-rooted due process protections for the accused.

On August 4, 2011, SAVE sent a letter to the OCR expressing concern over the new requirement for use of the “preponderance of evidence” standard, and calling for the Dear Colleague Letter to be rescinded.[3] The OCR did not respond to the substance of the request or even acknowledge receipt of the correspondence.

It wasn’t until six years later that SAVE’s request was fulfilled. On September 22, 2017, the Office for Civil Rights announced its withdrawal of the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and its 2014 Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence.[4]

Last year SAVE published a Special Report, Appellate Court Decisions for Allegations of Campus Sexual Misconduct, 2013-2018.[5] The report analyzes the 14 appellate cases decided in favor of the accused student involving campus sexual assault. These were the most common due process violations identified in the Judicial Findings, in descending order:

Insufficient hearing process
Lack of cross-examination/Inadequate credibility assessment
Insufficient notice
Inadequate investigation
Conflicting roles of college officials
Improper use or exclusion of witness testimony
Potential sex bias
Misuse of affirmative consent policy

These eight violations closely track the due process procedures that Judge Friendly identified 45 years before.

Sexual assault complainants are unhappy with the current state of affairs, as well. SAVE has identified examples of persons who said their mistreatment at the hands of inept college officials was more traumatic than the original sexual assault. A recent CBS News documentary highlighted victims who complained that the current system is not working for them.[6]

In short, the current campus “Kangaroo Courts” represent a failed response to the problem of campus sexual assault.

On November 29, 2018 the Department of Education released its proposed Title IX regulations.[7] Among other things, the proposed regulation will restore a series of due process procedures on college campuses:[8]

A presumption of innocence for the respondent throughout the grievance process;
The school must objectively evaluate all relevant evidence including inculpatory and exculpatory evidence;
All Title IX Coordinators, investigators and decision-makers must not have conflicts of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents;
Training materials for Title IX Coordinators, investigators and decision-makers must foster impartial determinations without relying on sex stereotypes;
A respondent cannot face discipline without due process protections;
Ensure the burden of proof and burden of gathering evidence rest on the school, not on the parties;
Provide equal opportunity for both parties to present witnesses and evidence;
Not restrict the ability of either party to discuss the allegations or gather relevant evidence (e.g., no “gag orders”);
Provide the parties with the same opportunity to be accompanied at all phases of the grievance process by an advisor of the party’s choice (who may be an attorney);
Give written notice of any interview, meeting, or hearing at which a party is invited or expected to participate;
Provide equal access to review all the evidence that the school investigator has collected, including the investigative report, giving each party equal opportunity to respond to that evidence before a determination is made;
For colleges and universities, a final determination must be made at a live hearing, and cross-examination must be allowed (with rape shield protections against asking about a complainant’s sexual history) and must be conducted by each party’s advisor (i.e., no personal confrontation allowed).
After investigation, a written determination must be sent to both parties explaining for each allegation whether the respondent is responsible or not responsible including the facts and evidence on which the conclusion is based. The determination must be made by a decisionmaker who is not the same person as the Title IX Coordinator or investigator
Where a finding of responsibility is made against the respondent, the written determination must describe what remedies the school will provide to the survivor to restore or preserve equal access to the school’s education program or activity, and any sanctions imposed on the respondent.

Nine years after the Department of Education issued its Dear Colleague Letter, the debate has been resolved. Neither identified victims nor accused students are being well served by the new campus regime. The current system is broken. SAVE urges the Office of Management and Budget to publish the new Title IX regulations promptly, and calls upon the Department of Education to vigorously enforce the new requirements.

[1] https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5317&context=penn_law_review

[2] http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

[3] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/OCRLetter.pdf

[4] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-title-ix-201709.pdf

[5] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Appellate-Court-Cases-Report.pdf

[6] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/title-ix-sexual-misconduct-on-campus-cbsn-documentary/

[7] https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2018-OCR-0064-0001

[8] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/background-summary-proposed-ttle-ix-regulation.pdf

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

PR: SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Rein in the Campus Kangaroo

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 9, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Rein in the Campus Kangaroo

WASHINGTON / January 8, 2020 – After nine years of campus adjudications that triggered thousands of federal complaints and hundreds of lawsuits, SAVE — a national policy organization — is calling on lawmakers to take steps to reform campus sex tribunals, sometimes referred to derisively as “kangaroo courts.”

In 2011 the federal Department of Education issued a controversial policy directing campus disciplinary committees to handle all allegations of sexual assault, even incidents that fell within the definition of a criminal offense (1).

Serious problems with the new approach soon became obvious, as the number of complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights increased by more than five-fold. The number of Title IX complaints skyrocketed from 391 complaints in 2010 to over 2,000 complaints in 2013 and 2014 (2). In some cases, women complained the mistreatment at the hands of inept campus officials was more traumatic than the actual assault (3).

Likewise, the number of lawsuits by accused students against universities increased dramatically, with a majority of lawsuits decided in favor of the accused student. From these many lawsuits, SAVE has identified the 25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process (4). A CBS News documentary summed up the situation this way: “Students accused of sexual misconduct say Title IX isn’t working – and victims agree.” (5)

In 2018, the Dept. of Education issued a draft regulatory framework (6), which is expected to be finalized in early 2020. In support of this effort, SAVE is urging lawmakers to assure that three fundamental due process protections on college campuses are implemented in their state (7):

Clearly stated presumption of innocence
Timely and detailed written notice of the allegations
Right to a meaningful hearing process. This includes having the case adjudicated by persons other than the person who conducted the investigation. This means the institution must not employ a “single-investigator model.”

More information is available on the SAVE website (8).

Citations:

SAVE – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is leading the national policy movement to restore due process, stop false allegations, and protect all victims.

Affirmative Consent Sexual Assault

Affirmative Consent: New Paradigm for Sexual Behavior

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 14, 2019

We agreed to work with the Commission [on Domestic and Sexual Violence] on this Resolution [114], and that goes back to [Resolution] 115 at the mid-year meeting. And [Commission head] Mark Schickman and some others appeared at the Spring meeting in Nashville. It was late and things were getting rushed and they brought the recommendation to us. While there was dissent on our Council, the Council did vote to approve and vote to co-sponsor.

As we got closer to this meeting, we realized that we hadn’t paid enough attention to far-reaching implications of this new Resolution. After it was submitted, we realized that the intent of the drafters was to adopt a new paradigm. Let me repeat that: A new paradigm. This changes the law entirely with respect to sexual behavior.

The report made it clear that the drafters were seeking an “affirmative consent” standard. The report always referred to work on this issue by ALI [American Law Institute], although the citations to ALI were back in 2014. No mention of 2015 or 2016. What it didn’t mention is that after two years of struggling with this new paradigm, at the annual ALI meeting in May of 2016, a formal vote was taken and the affirmative consent approach was rejected.

Now we received – and I think it may have gone to the House – a letter from 100 ALI members. It’s not an ALI letter, but it was signed by 100 ALI members who worked on these issues. And they said — I want to quote from parts of it:

“For reasons that have not been explained to us, the ABA ‘Report’ in support of Resolution 114 reveals no part of this history” – that is, the rejection in 2016. “Instead, the Report cites no ALI materials after 2014, and as a result, is highly misleading.”

“This is very troubling. The ABA should not consider moving forward with an important matter with a ‘Report’ purporting to justify the action that is so obviously deficient. This a matter of the essential integrity of the ABA. A vote based upon the current Report is not defensible because the ‘Report’ absolutely excludes all relevant information about ALI’s actual position while repeatedly claiming support from ALI.”

They said, in short, the report is based on “bad history and bad science,” and they respectfully suggested that it not be passed at this time by the House of Delegates.

There are some serious implications to that. I had one judge who heard about it remarked that if the contents of the report – what was left out of that report – had been submitted to a Court in a brief, it not only would have been stricken, but the attorneys might well have been sanctioned.

So the Executive Committee decided that we needed to review it and revisit it, and we did. The Executive Committee of the Criminal Justice Section voted unanimously to recommend to the full Criminal Justice Section Council that we withdraw our co-sponsorship and move to postpone it indefinitely, so we could revisit these issues more carefully and more thoroughly. We didn’t make those recommendations lightly.

Then it went to the full Council, and the full Council voted unanimously to pull our support, and instructed us to file this motion before you now.

For more information on ABA Resolution 114 and how it was defeated, see: http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/ali/

Sexual Assault Trauma Informed

Trauma Informed Investigations Stole My Son’s Future

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 3, 2019

If you’d have asked me before my son was accused of sexual misconduct, I would have said that trauma-informed investigations were a good idea. Living through the ’90s as a female college student, then as a woman motivated to be successful in a male-dominated field, sexual harassment, inequality, and forcible rape happened. It still happens today. Then so many victims were afraid to come forward as they are now. However, in our rush for justice, we are bearing witness to the creation of a new class of victims on college campuses and in the criminal justice system: The innocent.

These new victims aren’t given the presumption of innocence. They aren’t entitled to know the accusation against them. Evidence is withheld from them and their lawyers. Police officers ask deceptively leading questions, and school investigators are both judge and jury making life-altering sanction decisions based on the presumption that a ‘victim’ never lies.

In my son’s case, he suffered through all of that and more. We were told to trust the system. That the system works. Hate to tell you, it only works for you if you have the will, courage, and financial resources to fight.

My son was accused of a felony sexual assault punishable up to 40 years in prison. What did he do? He accepted a woman’s invitation to lay on her bed. They were clothed at all times, and consumed no alcohol and no drugs. There was no sex, no fondling, no skin to skin contact, no kissing. She was on top of him and she was in control the whole time. We will never know what caused her to falsely accuse my son of assault.

Her accusation was fabricated and disgusting. All of her statements were lies, used to destroy my son or manipulate the truth. As campus employees, the police officer and the school Title IX investigator worked hand in hand with the district attorney’s office. Not once was my son told his rights. The entire time, I kept asking myself, won’t someone just look at the evidence? Talk to the witnesses? But in the well-intentioned battle against sexual assault, facts become irrelevant, and truth never seems to matter.

What we witnessed is that once you start from a position of believing the purported victim, you never move from it, despite evidence that proves the accusation to be false. While there is value to treat potential victims with care, something that has often been lacking, if you start by believing, you start by assuming he is guilty.

My child endured terribly unfair treatment as a result of trauma-informed methods.
My son was arrested and spent the night in jail based on a DNA collection warrant. The DNA test results were exculpatory; unfortunately they were ignored by the school and disregarded by the prosecutor.
His accuser was interviewed for 75 minutes and nothing was recorded or documented.
The Prosecutor continued despite knowing the accuser destroyed exculpatory evidence and lied on a police report.
The campus detective, while testifying under oath, stated that he did not use leading questions. Yet when interviewing my son’s ex-girlfriend, the first question asked to her, “Please tell me about the time xxx sexually assaulted you.”
The Campus detective admitted on the witness stand he did not follow proper police procedure.
Neither investigator nor the prosecutor interviewed the very first person to interact with my son’s accuser after he left her, the responding RA. The RA had evidence that supported my son’s innocence.

Even though all of the evidence pointed to a false allegation, my son was forced to endure four days of a trial. He faced a sentence of up to forty years. The jury acquitted him in less than one hour.

My family suffered significant, irreversible damage. Tears, anger, and heart-wrenching hate is a “new normal.” We do our best to push through the bad days. If the investigators would have done their jobs with integrity, my son would not have lived in fear for over a year in terror of just about everyone and everything.

The prosecutor can claim victory, though. Every time my son undergoes a background check it shows that he was acquitted of felony sexual assault, and he is judged guilty. Getting a good paying job is impossible. He will never get to live as an innocent person should. This is the result of a rush to believe, a lack of objective fact-finding, and the sheer bias with which my son was viewed. He did not break the law, his accuser did. And he will pay for it for the rest of his life.

* A. Pebble is the author’s pen name, used because the author’s son is still recovering from the psychological after-effects of the experience.

Source: http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.1451

Sexual Assault

Will AG William Barr Uphold Fair Investigations in Sexual Assault Cases?

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 18, 2019

Advocates of due process look hopefully to Attorney General William Barr to stop law enforcement’s recent drift away from traditional protections of Western jurisprudence. The spotlight is on one particular campaign.

Start by Believing Day was observed on April 3rd—the first Wednesday of every April. Start by Believing is a Department of Justice (DOJ) funded drive to transform American police procedure so that accusations of sexual abuse are met with belief and those accused are not presumed innocent until proven guilty. The attitude of “believe the victim” has ruled campus hearings on sexual assault for decades. It is spreading to police departments. This is a logical progression as campus hearings commonly share proceedings in which an accused has received no due process with prosecutors who pursue criminal charges.

Matt Rolph dramatizes the impact on real human beings. The 22-year-old sobbed as he spoke to the New York state paper that independently investigated an accusation of rape against him. The paper and a jury found him not guilty. But the campus hearing, at which he was refused the presence of a lawyer, found him guilty. “It hurts so much that anyone can just google my name and think that I’m a monster,” Rolph declared, “because they don’t know that there was no evidence.” On course to graduate within a few months, Rolph was expelled from Hobart College due to a complaint by an accuser whose identity remains confidential. He is a broken young man.

The underlying issue in cases like Rolph’s is due process. It is jeopardized, if not destroyed, by expanding the “guilty until proven innocent” approach into police departments and courtrooms. Those who champion due process have reason for optimism, however. The recent appointment of Barr as AG has raised hopes that the DOJ will reaffirm traditional principles of justice, especially the presumption of innocence. Start by Believing is a test case.

The program is administered by End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI)–an organization supported by the DOJ’s Office on Violence Against Women. It has received over 20 DOJ grants for a total of about 9 million dollars, with the last grant of $400,000 occurring last fall. But opposition mounts. A headline in the academic watchdog The College Fix announced “Due-process group kicks off campaign to expose flaws of ‘Start by Believing’.” The due process group is Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE).

To what does SAVE object?

Start by Believing’s victim-oriented approach is embodied by campaign’s Law Enforcement Action kit, which aims at restructuring the framework of police ethics and procedure. The kit’s core is the manual “Effective Report Writing: Using the Language of Non-Consensual Sex.” It is a game-changer for police investigations and for due process. Police are admonished to believe all sexual abuse accusations and to “recreate the reality of the sexual assault from the victim’s perspective” without heed to “changing statements” about the alleged crime.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police code currently states, “The law enforcement officer shall be concerned equally in the prosecution of the wrong-doer and the defense of the innocent. He shall ascertain what constitutes evidence and shall present such evidence impartially and without malice.” And police traditionally seek both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, including shifts in statement, which is made available to both the prosecution and defense.

Under EVAWI guidelines, however, the police become agents of the prosecutor, not independent fact finders. The manual’s stated goal for an investigation is a “successful prosecution,” which means “an effective report must be prepared by the investigator in anticipation of potential defense strategies,” and it must include “the information necessary to undermine them.”

The most effective evidence of the bias is simply to quote the manual:

Page 5: “Record witness statements, especially those that corroborate the victim’s account.” And “document suspect statements, especially those that corroborate the victim’s account.”
Pages 15-16: “Another crucial strategy is to always use the language of non-consensual sex when writing a sexual assault report.” And “to recreate the reality…from the victim’s perspective, ‘word pictures’ in a written report must rely on the language of non-consensual sex.”
Page 22: “[I]investigators can elicit a detailed description…which provides clues about what the victim was experiencing. This is especially important when the description matches up with the victim’s account of events, including everything that the victim was thinking and feeling at the time.”
Page 34: “[I]nvestigators can minimize the risk of contradiction by not writing a detailed report for any victim or witness who has already provided a detailed, written summary of events.”

In short, the manual advises police to slant the report, cast the encounter as non-consensual, emphasize subjective factors, and conceal inconsistencies—all the while considering how to counter defense strategies.

EVAWI manifests a combination of “victim-centered” and “trauma-informed” approaches which, in a 2018 Open Letter, over 150 professors and legal experts called a “virtual chicken soup of quasi-diagnoses such as…‘fragmentation of memories’.” A current petition seeks to return police investigations to fact and away from selective and biased reports.

The DOJ is changing. The Mueller report and growing calls for internal investigations may occasion more shifts away from FBI methods that arouse accusations of bias. As part of that shift, the DOJ’s funding of a project that rejects due process should be abandoned.

Campus Sexual Assault

Victim-Centered Investigations in Title IX Disciplinary Proceedings: A Litigator’s Perspective

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 12, 2019

Since 2011, I have represented upwards of 100 falsely accused students in Title IX disciplinary procedures at universities across America. I also have filed over 20 lawsuits against Universities that erroneously suspended or expelled students who were alleged to have engaged in sexual misconduct.

These lawsuits have a common thread shared by hundreds of other lawsuits, including two by parents of students who committed suicide. That common thread is the denial of basic due process protections that any person accused of sexual misconduct in America would expect. These lawsuits document how basic due process protections have been removed by University investigators and adjudicators who stack the deck in favor of accusing students.

This favoritism towards accusing students often springs from Title IX training materials provided to investigators and adjudicators. I know because I see these training materials in my clients’ lawsuits. The training materials teach Title IX staff that from the very beginning of the process, they should favor accusing students over accused students by implanting concepts such as:

Start by Believing
Victims Don’t Lie
How to conduct ‘victim-centered’ investigations

It is important to note that I am a reluctant advocate for accused students. I spent five years as the executive director of a Christian non-profit organization bringing micro-finance and fair-trade programs to sex trafficked women and at-risk women and girls in Asia, Africa, and North America. My experience working with the women, some in their early teens, caused me to have zero tolerance for sexual exploitation of females.

My experiences in some of these countries also caused me to observe the adverse impacts these women experienced as a result of the powerful forces that worked against them.

The Start by Believing training materials that I’ve seen trigger harmful, predetermined outcomes of a different sort. This is because University policies promise fair and impartial proceedings with cross-examination and the ability to present exculpatory evidence. But in reality, these rights are routinely denied.

I want to provide two examples how Start By Believing training programs have caused college investigators and adjudicators to violate our most fundamental ideas of due process, by excluding evidence that proves the accusing students’ allegations are false.

In the first case, a hearing panel of university employees rejected every one of the 264 cross-examination questions that the accused student sought to ask his accuser and the university’s witnesses, even though the university’s handbook allowed for such questions.

When asked why the panel didn’t ask any of the 264 questions, the hearing panel admitted, The questions didn’t matter because the answers would not change their mind that the accused student was guilty.

How did the hearing panel know that none of the yet-to-be-given answers to the 264 questions would have changed their minds? As detailed in the lawsuit that followed, the reason was a belief that the university must favor the accusing students regardless of whether the accused student was innocent.

In a second case, a student was accused of engaging in sexual misconduct. During the course of the investigation he presented:

Polygraph expert testimony that he never engaged in the sexual misconduct alleged.
Toxicologist expert testimony that proved it was impossible for the accusing student to have been in the incapacitated state she claimed was in when she engaged sexually with the accused student.

Nonetheless, the university panel refused to ask any of the cross-examination questions that the accused student proposed. The hearing panel later found him “responsible” and suspended him.

Why did a hearing panel that was charged with administering justice in a fair and impartial way reject facts proving the accused student was innocent? My experience pointed to one very clear conclusion: that no amount of evidence was going to change their predetermined position that they must believe the accusing student.

Unfortunately, these two cases are not isolated instances of how Start by Believing training has caused college investigators and adjudicators to violate our most fundamental ideas of fairness.

I know this because on multiple occasions, my clients have asked hearing panel members if they received Start by Believing training on how to conduct hearings that will not “re-traumatize” the accusing student. And on far too many occasions, hearing panel members admit they have been trained in ways that protect accusing students from having to respond to questions or evidence that prove he or she is lying.

And until these practices are reversed, there will more suicides, destroyed lives, and needless lawsuits. I hope others will join me in looking for solutions that treat both accusing students and accused students in a fair and impartial manner.

False Allegations Sexual Assault Start By Believing

‘One of the worst days of my life:’ Stop sham ‘Start By Believing’ investigations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 19, 2019

MATT ROLPH WAS BRANDED A RAPIST, EXPELLED FROM HIS COLLEGE, AND FORCED TO SPEND $$$ TO RESTORE HIS GOOD NAME.

In 2014 Matt Rolph, above, was accused of sexually assaulting his long-term girlfriend, “Jane Roe.” His case went to court, and the jury cleared him of all charges.

Even though the jury found Matt innocent, Hobart College in Geneva, NY decided to make an example of him. So Hobart hired an investigator who…
1. Did not record any of the interviews.
2. Failed to review innocence-proving text messages sent by Jane.
3. Failed to get records supporting Jane’s claim of medical problems caused by the incident.
4. Did not resolve inconsistencies among witness statements.

No surprise, based on the investigator’s biased report, the school expelled Matt. He later described it as “One of the worst days of my life.”

So he filed a lawsuit against the College. Several months later, Judge Elizabeth Wolford ruled in favor Matt Rolph’s claims of investigative bias.

ISN’T OUR LEGAL SYSTEM BASED ON THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE?

Investigators are supposed to conduct investigations that are objective, neutral, and honest. But now, investigators are being told to “Start By Believing” the accuser and use “victim-centered” methods.

“Start By Believing” tells investigators to investigate cases from an “initial presumption” of guilt, to slant their report to “corroborate the victim’s account,” and to even make sure the sexual encounter does “not look like a consensual sexual experience.” (3)

Matt Rolph is just one of the many thousands of Americans who have been victimized by “victim-centered” investigations. Amazingly, the U.S. Department of Justice has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to support “Start By Believing programs” around the country.

DON’T LET ‘START BY BELIEVING’ HAPPEN TO YOU! TELL ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT BARR TO STOP FUNDING CORRUPT ‘START BY BELIEVING’ PROGRAMS.

Sexual Assault

PR: New Tools Aim to Assist Defense Attorneys in Combating ‘Start By Believing’ Bias

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 15, 2019

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

New Tools Aim to Assist Defense Attorneys in Combating ‘Start By Believing’ Bias

WASHINGTON / March 15, 2019 – In response to a pledge taken by law enforcement officers and prosecutors across the country to “Start By Believing,”ⁱ Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) announces the release of a series of model cross-examination questions and jury voir dire questions. Developed with the input of veteran defense attorneys, these questions are intended to aid attorneys in exposing the biased results of investigations based on Start By Believing or other “victim-centered” methods. ⁱⁱ

Every defense attorney knows the frustration of losing a case where the defendant was clearly innocent, but the police detective failed to perform a thorough and unbiased investigation. A recent study confirms that “[a]n investigator’s belief that a person is guilty may be the reason innocent people get convicted.”ⁱⁱⁱ Defense attorneys should be aware that utilization of Start by Believing techniques is widespread and must be probed at trial.

For example, SBB-trained investigators conduct investigations that:

Begin with the premise that the complaining witness is telling the truth,
De-emphasize inconsistent complainant statements in order to “minimize the risk of contradiction,” and
Emphasize feelings over facts to sway the judge and jury in favor of complainants^iv

These types of investigations must be aggressively examined and exposed by asking such questions as:

You’ve seen investigations resulting from false allegations? If you “Start By Believing,” you might never discover those false allegations?;
You took steps to corroborate the complaining witness’ report, but you didn’t take steps to refute his/her statements?; and
You will agree that when you start your investigation by believing the complaining witness, that necessarily means that you’ve made a pre-judgment about the guilt of the accused?

SAVE has also developed several proposed voir dire questions to aid in vetting potential jurors. Defense attorneys should recognize that members of the general public have been exposed to Start By Believing concepts via the mass media, or school or workplace training^v.

Prosecutors may move forward with cases that have been improperly investigated. The City of Charleston, SC, recently settled with a college student wrongfully charged with rape.^vi “We don’t give up, even when an investigation is subpar,” the prosecutor admitted.^viiIn accordance with Start By Believing philosophy, the prosecutor accepted the poorly investigated claims of the purported victim at face value, at the expense of the rights of the accused. The student was later acquitted by a jury after only a few minutes’ deliberation.

It is only a matter of time before similar trials are conducted across the country, and defense attorneys should be prepared.

The full list of cross-examination and voir dire questions is available here: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/cross-examination-voir-dire/ See more about SAVE’s national campaign to warn criminal defense attorneys, lawmakers, and others about the perils of Start By Believing: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/sbb/.

Citations:

i https://www.evawintl.org/Library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=789

ii http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/cross-examination-voir-dire/

iii https://phys.org/news/2018-10-guilty-proven-innocent-police-perceptions.html

iv https://www.evawintl.org/library/Detail.aspx?ItemID=43

v https://www.startbybelieving.org/resources/#campaignmaterials

vi http://www.live5news.com/2019/02/21/city-charleston-pays-k-settle-false-arrest-suit/?outputType=amp

vii https://www.postandcourier.com/news/quick-not-guilty-verdict-for-ex-college-of-charleston-student/article_bc40e27e-e500-11e7-88a4-1b8b1c49ad0f.html