No charges after assault allegation tied to Huskers' home

[Enhance]

We shall see how well it is handled then. Some schools do a horrible job with these investigations and some police departments don't want to touch cases like this either. At least that is what I remember from the title ix session I had to take a couple months ago at the school I work at.

That's an interesting perspective. I hope that UNL does a good job here -- football issues totally aside. I'd expect them to, but this seems like such a recent thing for college administrations, and it's not all of them that handle it well.


This quote, if that's what was said, stood out to me. While that may be the standard for a criminal investigation, preponderance is all that is needed in a civil investigation. If there is justice that needs serving, I hope football convenience is the last thing on anybody's minds.

People can always surprise us, even the ones we believe we know well. That said, I've had to work with Joe Kelly in the past, and my circumstantial opinion is he's a pretty straight-shooting guy. If he doesn't think there's enough evidence to pursue a criminal charge, I personally would believe him.

 

[gtgphd]

UNL conducting its own investigation into reported sex assault : Lincoln, NE Journal Star November 25

"Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, U.S. colleges and universities are responsible for investigating sexual assault claims made by anyone in the university community -- even if those allegations took place at an off-campus location or have not been formally reported to the university.

Susan Foster, UNL’s Title IX coordinator, said even if no criminal charges are filed, the university is required by federal law to investigate whether or not the UNL student code of conduct has been violated.

That requires a lower burden of proof than criminal prosecutors must meet to win a conviction in the courts -- the “greater weight of the evidence” rather than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

So while Lancaster County Attorney Joe Kelly said in a news conference Wednesday morning that his office did not feel it had enough evidence to file charges, UNL investigators only must prove “it is more likely than not” a violation has occurred."

 

[Husker Psycho]

We shall see how well it is handled then. Some schools do a horrible job with these investigations and some police departments don't want to touch cases like this either. At least that is what I remember from the title ix session I had to take a couple months ago at the school I work at.

That's an interesting perspective. I hope that UNL does a good job here -- football issues totally aside. I'd expect them to, but this seems like such a recent thing for college administrations, and it's not all of them that handle it well.


This quote, if that's what was said, stood out to me. While that may be the standard for a criminal investigation, preponderance is all that is needed in a civil investigation. If there is justice that needs serving, I hope football convenience is the last thing on anybody's minds.

I stayed out of the original thread completely.

But the comment by the prosecutor is very troubling. He-they claimed not enough proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". The problem with that as I understand it is that it's not the prosecutors job to make that decision... that's the job of a jury. It would appear that the prosecutors have anointed themselves as prosecutor and jury.

I don't ever remember seeing a prosecutor say something like that about filing charges. Plus it would appear to say that in fact there was some evidence just not enough for the prosecutor-jury-deciders. That's why we have jury's. The prosecutor seems to have overstepped his authority.

I'm not taking sides in this... but the statement by the prosecutor is troubling. I'm pretty sure that's not how things are supposed to work.

 

[zoogs]

I thought it just meant that they don't feel there is enough to pursue a criminal case. As for how close it may or may not have been, it's probably pointless to speculate. As gtgphd points out above, the mandated Title IX investigation by the university is going to be ongoing -- and they're not looking at it from a "is there cause for a criminal charge" angle. Which is good, as UNL still has responsibilities here, regardless of what action the police decide to take.

 

[funhusker]

We shall see how well it is handled then. Some schools do a horrible job with these investigations and some police departments don't want to touch cases like this either. At least that is what I remember from the title ix session I had to take a couple months ago at the school I work at.

That's an interesting perspective. I hope that UNL does a good job here -- football issues totally aside. I'd expect them to, but this seems like such a recent thing for college administrations, and it's not all of them that handle it well.


This quote, if that's what was said, stood out to me. While that may be the standard for a criminal investigation, preponderance is all that is needed in a civil investigation. If there is justice that needs serving, I hope football convenience is the last thing on anybody's minds.

I stayed out of the original thread completely.

But the comment by the prosecutor is very troubling. He-they claimed not enough proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". The problem with that as I understand it is that it's not the prosecutors job to make that decision... that's the job of a jury. It would appear that the prosecutors have anointed themselves as prosecutor and jury.

I don't ever remember seeing a prosecutor say something like that about filing charges. Plus it would appear to say that in fact there was some evidence just not enough for the prosecutor-jury-deciders. That's why we have jury's. The prosecutor seems to have overstepped his authority.

I'm not taking sides in this... but the statement by the prosecutor is troubling. I'm pretty sure that's not how things are supposed to work.

I thought the same thing when I first read the quotes, but then thought about what a prosecutor does. The DA looks at evidence to build a case that will stand up in court. His/her goal is to present a case to the jury that make them believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed a crime. If the prosecutor doesn't see enough evidence to even convince himself, with an admitted bias, it would be wasteful to present it to a jury that supposed to play devil's advocate and make sure all bases are covered before a conviction is delivered. At least, I hope that's how it works

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

We shall see how well it is handled then. Some schools do a horrible job with these investigations and some police departments don't want to touch cases like this either. At least that is what I remember from the title ix session I had to take a couple months ago at the school I work at.

That's an interesting perspective. I hope that UNL does a good job here -- football issues totally aside. I'd expect them to, but this seems like such a recent thing for college administrations, and it's not all of them that handle it well.


This quote, if that's what was said, stood out to me. While that may be the standard for a criminal investigation, preponderance is all that is needed in a civil investigation. If there is justice that needs serving, I hope football convenience is the last thing on anybody's minds.

I stayed out of the original thread completely.

But the comment by the prosecutor is very troubling. He-they claimed not enough proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". The problem with that as I understand it is that it's not the prosecutors job to make that decision... that's the job of a jury. It would appear that the prosecutors have anointed themselves as prosecutor and jury.

I don't ever remember seeing a prosecutor say something like that about filing charges. Plus it would appear to say that in fact there was some evidence just not enough for the prosecutor-jury-deciders. That's why we have jury's. The prosecutor seems to have overstepped his authority.

I'm not taking sides in this... but the statement by the prosecutor is troubling. I'm pretty sure that's not how things are supposed to work.

It's the prosecutors job to look at the case to determine if there is enough evidence there to file charges and secure a conviction. If not there would be so many cases going to court it would be insane and also a waste of tax payers money. Sure, they could've worded it differently, but regardless, there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with charges apparently.

 

[Husker Psycho]

I thought it just meant that they don't feel there is enough to pursue a criminal case. As for how close it may or may not have been, it's probably pointless to speculate. As gtgphd points out above, the mandated Title IX investigation by the university is going to be ongoing -- and they're not looking at it from a "is there cause for a criminal charge" angle. Which is good, as UNL still has responsibilities here, regardless of what action the police decide to take.

I don't disagree with you, and I'm not taking sides. But the two investigations are totally separate.

The problem is the prosecutors statement and his apparent jumping in front a jury. As for how close it may or not have been, that's up to a jury. As someone else said, the proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the correct mechanism for charging crimes. I find that very troubling.

 

[zoogs]

Oh, right. I think I worded that poorly. I was just trying to highlight that there's going to be that separate UNL investigation as well, with a different standard of evidence.

As the other posters have said, I believe decisions to charge or not charged based on whether they think there's a case or not is pretty common and natural. And if it is going to be a criminal matter, then "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard to have in mind.

IANAL, but probably a victim could still bring criminal charges on their own if they chose.

 

[Husker Psycho]

We shall see how well it is handled then. Some schools do a horrible job with these investigations and some police departments don't want to touch cases like this either. At least that is what I remember from the title ix session I had to take a couple months ago at the school I work at.

That's an interesting perspective. I hope that UNL does a good job here -- football issues totally aside. I'd expect them to, but this seems like such a recent thing for college administrations, and it's not all of them that handle it well.


This quote, if that's what was said, stood out to me. While that may be the standard for a criminal investigation, preponderance is all that is needed in a civil investigation. If there is justice that needs serving, I hope football convenience is the last thing on anybody's minds.

I stayed out of the original thread completely.

But the comment by the prosecutor is very troubling. He-they claimed not enough proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". The problem with that as I understand it is that it's not the prosecutors job to make that decision... that's the job of a jury. It would appear that the prosecutors have anointed themselves as prosecutor and jury.

I don't ever remember seeing a prosecutor say something like that about filing charges. Plus it would appear to say that in fact there was some evidence just not enough for the prosecutor-jury-deciders. That's why we have jury's. The prosecutor seems to have overstepped his authority.

I'm not taking sides in this... but the statement by the prosecutor is troubling. I'm pretty sure that's not how things are supposed to work.

It's the prosecutors job to look at the case to determine if there is enough evidence there to file charges and secure a conviction. If not there would be so many cases going to court it would be insane and also a waste of tax payers money. Sure, they could've worded it differently, but regardless, there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with charges apparently.

But the prosecutor did not say there was not enough evidence. He used the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" which would imply that in fact there was evidence but that he made an assumption on how a jury would decide, even though that's not his job... that's a jurys job. That type of action by a prosecutor should be troubling in any case... this one or any other case.

 

[funhusker]

Husker Psycho, would it have sounded better if the prosecutor said "we did not find enough evidence to substansiate a case" ?

It probably should have been stated that way, but it wasn't. If the DA doesn't feel confident, I know I wouldn't want to miss work to sit in on that jury.

 

[Mierin]

I stayed out of the original thread completely.

But the comment by the prosecutor is very troubling. He-they claimed not enough proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". The problem with that as I understand it is that it's not the prosecutors job to make that decision... that's the job of a jury. It would appear that the prosecutors have anointed themselves as prosecutor and jury.

I don't ever remember seeing a prosecutor say something like that about filing charges. Plus it would appear to say that in fact there was some evidence just not enough for the prosecutor-jury-deciders. That's why we have jury's. The prosecutor seems to have overstepped his authority.

I'm not taking sides in this... but the statement by the prosecutor is troubling. I'm pretty sure that's not how things are supposed to work.

It's the prosecutors job to look at the case to determine if there is enough evidence there to file charges and secure a conviction. If not there would be so many cases going to court it would be insane and also a waste of tax payers money. Sure, they could've worded it differently, but regardless, there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with charges apparently.

But the prosecutor did not say there was not enough evidence. He used the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" which would imply that in fact there was evidence but that he made an assumption on how a jury would decide, even though that's not his job... that's a jurys job. That type of action by a prosecutor should be troubling in any case... this one or any other case.

I'm sorry but that's not how it works. Maybe ideally that's how it should work but it's not. Most cases don't actually go to a trial before a jury, regardless of whether they involve high profile defendants or not.

 

[Husker Psycho]

Oh, right. I think I worded that poorly. I was just trying to highlight that there's going to be that separate UNL investigation as well, with a different standard of evidence.

As the other posters have said, I believe decisions to charge or not charged based on whether they think there's a case or not is pretty common and natural. And if it is going to be a criminal matter, then "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard to have in mind.

IANAL, but probably a victim could still bring criminal charges on their own if they chose.

No, victims cant do that. That's why a prosecutors job is so important in our legal system.

 

[funhusker]

I think he meant civil charges..

 

[Husker Psycho]

Husker Psycho, would it have sounded better if the prosecutor said "we did not find enough evidence to substansiate a case" ?

It probably should have been stated that way, but it wasn't. If the DA doesn't feel confident, I know I wouldn't want to miss work to sit in on that jury.

Yes

But he didn't say that. The term he used was not in his authority... and if the prosecutor does not know what his own authority is then that is very troubling.

 

[funhusker]

Husker Psycho, would it have sounded better if the prosecutor said "we did not find enough evidence to substansiate a case" ?

It probably should have been stated that way, but it wasn't. If the DA doesn't feel confident, I know I wouldn't want to miss work to sit in on that jury.

Yes

But he didn't say that. The term he used was not in his authority... and if the prosecutor does not know what his own authority is then that is very troubling.

I say "god dammit" a lot, that isn't in my authority.... Hopefully God doesn't rework his methods because of a few wrong words I chose. I would hate to see that spilled beer actually go to hell...when I can just sip it up off the table, or floor...