This is another Title IX sexual assault hearing case. This time involving USC. Another holding that the University's hearing procedures are fundamentally unfair.
As for the particular offense here, it's another profoundly troubling set of facts. Read the whole thing for the graphic details.
You can't figure out from a cold appellate record, of course, whether the alleged victim or perpetrator is more credible. But there are nonetheless some undisputed facts here that, in my view, make the alleged perpetrator -- in this case, a member of the USC football team -- look particularly bad.
To take but one example, the alleged victim stated that during the nonconsensual encounter (the victim alleged that she was held down, etc. etc.), "Doe pulled out to finish and it
looked like he planned to ejaculate on her face or torso. When he let go of
her, Roe “freaked out [and] went between his legs, scooting out quickly.” Doe
ejaculated on the sheets." The alleged perpetrator's version of these particular details is only slightly different: "Regarding the October 24 sexual encounter, Dr. Allee asked how Doe
knew Roe wanted him to pull her hair, to which Doe responded, “I didn’t. We
were in doggy position. I just assumed she’d like it.” Similarly, when asked
how he knew Roe wanted to swallow his ejaculate or to have him ejaculate on her face, Doe said, “I didn’t, but if she didn’t want to she could get out of the
way and she did.”
That last part doesn't sound like someone profoundly concerned about consent.
USC ends up finding the victim more credible and expels the alleged perpetrator. The Court of Appeal decides that the University's system was fundamentally unfair, so reverses the finding of sexual assault and expulsion on that basis.
But halfway through the opinion, there's this nugget. Which, though perhaps technically irrelevant to the issue of credibility, is definitely something of which the reader takes notice: the fact that, after his expulsion, the alleged perpetrator was apparently "charged with committing several
felonies near USC, and, in April 2016, sentenced to six years in state prison,
a sentence he was serving when the petition was heard. In August 2016, Doe
was expelled for independent violations of the SCC [and] as a result . . . regardless of this Court’s decision, Doe is no longer eligible to
return to USC."
Another fact which, if true, doesn't say particularly positive things about Mr. Doe. (Here's a couple of public links that relate to a particular USC football player).
