Court boosts rights of students accused of sexual misconduct

Courts and the Judiciary

Students accused of sexual misconduct at public universities have the right to cross-examine accusers at disciplinary hearings, a federal appeals court said Friday in a sweeping decision that will extend to public schools in four states.

The University of Michigan violated the rights of a male student by refusing to allow him or a representative to question witnesses in an alleged incident of sexual misconduct at a "Risky Business"-themed fraternity party, the court said.

A university investigator found insufficient evidence that a student had committed misconduct. But that conclusion was overturned by a campus appeals panel after two closed sessions.

The student, identified in court papers as John Doe, agreed to leave the school in 2016 instead of face expulsion, just 13.5 credits shy of getting a bachelor's degree in business. His attorney said he was made a "scapegoat" by the university to show that it was aggressively responding to complaints.

"If a public university has to choose between competing narratives to resolve a case, the university must give the accused student or his agent an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses in the presence of a neutral fact-finder," said Judge Amul Thapar, writing for a three-judge panel at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court overturned a decision by U.S. District Judge David Lawson. The ruling is binding in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, the four states covered by the 6th Circuit.

"Providing Doe a hearing with the opportunity for cross-examination would have cost the university very little," Thapar wrote. "As it turns out, the university already provides for a hearing with cross-examination in all misconduct cases other than those involving sexual assault."

University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said the decision was being reviewed.

"This is a very huge victory for the constitutional rights of students," Doe's attorney, Deborah Gordon, said. "Sexual-misconduct proceedings have to be a search for the truth. The University of Michigan, by hiding the ball from both sides, has really done a huge disservice to the entire issue of sexual misconduct on campus. The stakes are so high."

It's unclear what will happen next. But Gordon said her client, who had a 3.94 grade-point average, wants his college degree.

Related listings

  • Court may reconsider ruling on police deadly force measure

    Court may reconsider ruling on police deadly force measure

    Courts and the Judiciary 08/30/2018

    The question of whether Washington voters will have their say on a measure designed to make it easier to prosecute police for negligent shootings might not be over after all.One day after ruling that Initiative 940 should appear on the November ballo...

  • Top court: Social media posts violate no-contact order

    Top court: Social media posts violate no-contact order

    Courts and the Judiciary 07/25/2018

    Social media posts can represent a violation of a protection order, the state's highest court ruled on Tuesday, affirming the conviction of a man who made threats on Facebook.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court rejected Richard Heffron III's arguments t...

  • Court questions whether Maine has money to expand Medicaid

    Court questions whether Maine has money to expand Medicaid

    Courts and the Judiciary 07/19/2018

    Maine's high court is weighing whether to allow the LePage administration to continue to block federal funding for voter-approved Medicaid expansion.    Justices on Wednesday heard the administration's arguments against a court order r...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.