gtgphd

2014 Connecticut 2–10 1–7 T–10th 2015 Connecticut 6–7 4–4 T–3rd (East) L St. Petersburg 2016 Connecticut 3–9 1–7 T–4th (East) Connecticut: 11–26 6–18

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... Lawyers stock and trade are words. The "prosecutor" is the number one weakest link in our criminal justice system. That position has been mishandled-abused more than any other in our legal system and the result has been a disaster for many victims. I'm not taking sides in this issue, my comments are about the prosecutors actions and words. And a disaster for more than a few accused people.

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. A prosecutor ethically should not bring a case which s/he does not believe he can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. S/he might believe the accused has committed a crime, but not beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. If s/he brings a case for which s/he does not have that level of evidence, that would be unjust and a waste of the public money. The standard of evidence for the title IX investigation is much lower -- based on weight of the evidence and preponderance of evidence. If a title IX investigator believes that all of the evidence (including hearsay evidence) supports a complaint, then the accused can (must?) be held responsible, according to the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education. Like it or not. However, the title IX person quoted in the JS article says that investigation will completed within 60 days, so that covers the rest of the season, easily. findings could affect player eligibility next year, though, as title ix sanctions include expulsion. If the reporting party is not satisfied with sanctions, then s/he can appeal or complain to the OCR.

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."

the police investigation is only part of the problem. Title IX requires that UNL investigate the report, assuming the reporting party is a student. The standard of evidence in Title IX investigations is the civil standard, preponderance of evidence, which means more likely than not. It is a much lower standard than the criminal standard, which of course is beyond a reasonable doubt. In Title IX investigations, the process is administrative, which allows for hearsay evidence. Title IX, as interpreted by the DOE and OCR, allows for the reporting party or the respondent (accused) to appeal any findings or sanctions or lack of sanctions. So the police and prosecutors could decide not to bring charges and prosecute, but under Title IX the University must still investigate, must apply a lower standard of proof, and may impose sanctions up to and including expulsion from school. Read the book Missoula to see how this can work.