Duck basketball players accused of gang rape, the week before Altman played them in the NCAA tournament, earning Altman and Mullens $52.5K in bonuses.

5/6/2014: The ODE has a new statement from UO, saying they knew of the allegations on March 9, but were asked by the EPD to not start an investigation until the EPD investigation was concluded. UO chief strategic communicator Toby Klinger also is quoted as saying:

Due to Federal privacy laws, the university cannot provide further details regarding its actions at this time.

That’s not true. The federal Dept of Ed guidelines are here They are focused on protecting the victim to the extent reasonable. Otherwise they give UO plenty of latitude – particularly when it comes to revealing information that might prevent further incidents:

As discussed in the 2001 Guidance, if the complainant continues to ask that his or her name or
other identifiable information not be revealed, the school should evaluate that request in the
context of its responsibility to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for all
students. Thus, the school may weigh the request for confidentiality against the following
factors: the seriousness of the alleged harassment; the complainant’s age; whether there have
been other harassment complaints about the same individual; and the alleged harasser’s rights
to receive information about the allegations if the information is maintained by the school as an
“education record” under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C.
§ 1232g; 34 C.F.R. Part 99.

The school should inform the complainant if it cannot ensure
confidentiality. Even if the school cannot take disciplinary action against the alleged harasser
because the complainant insists on confidentiality, it should pursue other steps to limit the
effects of the alleged harassment and prevent its recurrence. Examples of such steps are
discussed later in this letter.

Meanwhile Josephine Wollington reports in the Register Guard that:

Under federal guidelines, a school should not wait for a criminal investigation to be completed or charges to be filed before starting its own investigation.

Actually, it’s little more complicated. The rules say:

Schools should not wait for the conclusion of a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding to
begin their own Title IX investigation and, if needed, must take immediate steps to protect the
student in the educational setting. For example, a school should not delay conducting its own
investigation or taking steps to protect the complainant because it wants to see whether the
alleged perpetrator will be found guilty of a crime. Any agreement or Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with a local police department must allow the school to meet its Title IX
obligation to resolve complaints promptly and equitably. Although a school may need to delay
temporarily the fact-finding portion of a Title IX investigation while the police are gathering
evidence, once notified that the police department has completed its gathering of evidence
(not the ultimate outcome of the investigation or the filing of any charges), the school must
promptly resume and complete its fact-finding for the Title IX investigation.

Moreover, nothing in an MOU or the criminal investigation itself should prevent a school from notifying complainants of their Title IX rights and the school’s grievance procedures, or from taking interim steps to ensure the safety and well-being of the complainant and the school community while the law enforcement agency’s fact-gathering is in progress.

5/6/2014: The ODE posts Lane County DA Alex Gardner’s detailed explanation for his decision not to prosecute:

… None of the above would be individually inexplicable, but collectively, and in the absence of additional evidence, they provide an insurmountable barrier to prosecution.

As they say, it’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up. And there’s still no word from our President on what he and his administration and coaches knew, and when they knew it. The 3/19 Steve Mims story on Dana Altman’s knowledge of the previous sexual assault history of his recruit is here. And Rachel Bachman has a story in the WSJ here, which notes:

Apart from any criminal investigation, universities are obligated under the Title IX federal gender-equity law to investigate and adjudicate allegations of sexual assault involving students. According to federal guidelines issued in 2011, universities are required to use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard for deciding responsibility for an alleged sexual assault, lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

And to whom has Gottfredson given responsibility for UO’s Title IX compliance? The famously incompetent AAEO Director Penny Daugherty, who can’t even figure out how to fill out UO’s affirmative action reports on time. UO’s policy on reporting sexual assaults is here.

5/6/2014 update: A commenter points out this 2002 RG story by then reporter Rob Moseley, now a Duck athletics PR flack, on a previous UO sex and athletics scandal:

Byline: ROB MOSELEY The Register-Guard

The University of Oregon athletic department has jumped to the defense of a program that hosts high school recruits after it was featured on a national cable television special about schools that use sex as a tool to lure prospective student-athletes.

The program, called Teamwork, was featured in an episode of HBO’s series “Real Sports” that aired Tuesday. A reporter from the series interviewed two former Teamwork members, both female, and a former member of the UO football team, all of whom verified that sex can indeed be an aspect of recruiting visits.

The former player was Eddie Smith, who is still on scholarship but never played a down of football for the Ducks after leaving the team due to recurring shoulder problems. Smith was quoted as saying one of the attractions for recruits on official 48-hour visits to the university was “girls. Girls, girls, girls.”

Also featured were former Teamwork members Monica Rodman and Lisa Wanjala. Teamwork is a program for UO students run by the athletic department that can be taken for credit as a college course and that involves participating in many aspects of recruiting, from preparing literature on the program to giving presentations to athletes on various aspects of athletics, as well as hosting recruits’ on-campus visits.

Duckweb CRN info here. And you thought FHS 199 was a scandal?

5/6/2014 update: An anonymous correspondent notes that the delay in reporting the alleged rape may have been driven by an effort to inflate UO’s NCAA “Academic Progress Rate”. An APR of 1000 means every player graduated or is on track to graduate. A 900 means that about half the students are graduating or on track. Players that are suspended or expelled for misconduct hurt the APR, while those transfer out of UO in good standing (or go to the pros) count as on track. The NCAA rules are that

For 2014-15, teams must earn a 930 four-year average APR or a 940 average over the most recent two years to participate in championships. In 2015-16 and beyond, teams must earn a four-year APR of 930.

UO’s most recently reported APR was 918:

So Altman’s Ducks are close to being banned from the NCAA tournament, giving UO a strong incentive to keep these players on the books as “making progress”, or keep the alleged rape quiet while Altman convinced them to transfer and found another university to take them off his hands.

This is how one of the alleged rapists, Brandon Austin, transferred to UO from Providence College, where he had also been accused of sexual assault. It’s still not clear how much Altman and Rob Mullens knew about that before accepting him. Rachel Bachman story here.

It’s also not clear whether UO’s committee on “special athletic admits”, which includes VP for Enrollment Roger Thompson and President Gottfredson’s special assistant Lorraine Davis and a few hand-picked faculty members, was involved in admitting Austin, or what they were told about his history.

5/6/2014 update: The ODE has a boilerplate statement from AD Rob Mullens and VPSA Robin Holmes:

“The University of Oregon takes all student misconduct that threatens the safety of our students very seriously. We have a clear obligation and responsibility to act in a way that protects all members of our campus community, and our first priority is always to ensure the safety and support of our students.

“Questions have arisen regarding the timeliness of the university’s involvement in the matter reported about University of Oregon basketball. Law enforcement agencies often request that the university wait to take action in order to avoid interference with an open criminal investigation. We responded accordingly in this situation. In all cases we begin investigating immediately, and aggressively address situations in accordance with the law, our internal code of conduct, and our commitment and obligation to protect and support our students.”

5/6/2014 update: Gottfredson still won’t say who knew what, and when they knew it:

On TuesdayMay 6, 2014, at 11:39 AM, President Michael Gottfredson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Campus Community,

The report of sexual violence affecting our community is of deep concern to me, as it is to all of us. The University of Oregon takes such reports extremely seriously. As a residential campus, a close community of students, faculty, and staff, supporting our students and protecting their safety is our highest priority.

I am deeply troubled by the information contained in the police report released yesterday by the Eugene Police Department. The university has rigorous internal conduct processes that we follow when we receive a report such as this, as well as legal processes and a moral commitment to our students. We share a responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for our students, a responsibility I take very seriously.

Regards, Michael Gottfredson, President

A listing of resources available to students who have experienced sexual violence or harassment is available at and at the SAFE hotline at 541-346-SAFE.

The ODE has details on the allegations, here.

5/6/2014: update: Austin Meek lays out the disturbing timeline in the RG:

Saturday, March 8. Do you remember what happened that day? That was the day Oregon upset No. 3 Arizona on the basketball court. It was senior day. Fans rushed the floor. Oregon’s website,, provided an account from the locker room after the game. “You guys are good guys,” coach Dana Altman told his team. Saturday, March 8. Do you remember what happened that night? That’s what the detectives asked when they showed up to interview three Oregon basketball players. It’s what they asked the woman who claimed she was sexually assaulted in a bathroom and again in a player’s bedroom.

Update: Did Gottfredson know about the rape allegation before he decided to dismantle the UO Senate’s athletics oversight committee and tell AD Rob Mullens and FAR Jim O’Fallon they no longer needed to answer their questions?

Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 12.19.46 AM

Update: The UO Coalition to End Sexual Violence has a post on this, here:

For too long, we have been falsely assured that the university responds swiftly and effectively to survivors. For too long, we have been told that the university “has established internal conduct processes for handling misconduct allegation.” When we raised issues about serial perpetrators, we were told that the university had no evidence about these. When we talked about institutional betrayal, we were repeatedly told by UO administrators that the people they meet with have uniformly positive experiences of the process. We are angry and bitter that this institution has betrayed our trust. When our institution is more interested in winning ball games than protecting students, that is institutional betrayal. This type of betrayal harms us all.

The first of what are sure to be many stories about the coverup is posted here. The UO administration’s culture of secrecy, their obsession with big-time sports, and the need to pay back the $235M in Matthew Knight Arena bonds by any means necessary have led to a lot of ugly things over the years – this is the worst.

5/5/2014: Andrew Greif has the story in the Oregonian, here. The UO police report is here. The report was filed on March 14. UO kept this quiet, and Coach Dana Altman let the three accused players stay on the team through the NCAA tournament. Their final tournament game was March 22. Altman’s contract is here. He was paid a substantial bonus for the NCAA bid and wins, as are his assistants:

Screen Shot 2014-05-05 at 9.04.57 PM

Altman’s boss Rob Mullens made $25K:

Screen Shot 2014-05-05 at 11.41.55 PM

President Gottfredson’s comment is here:

Screen Shot 2014-05-05 at 9.13.57 PM

From the police reports filed by UO PD Officer John Loos, starting on 3/14/2014:

Screen Shot 2014-05-05 at 9.31.57 PM

Screen Shot 2014-05-05 at 9.33.42 PM

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Duck basketball players accused of gang rape, the week before Altman played them in the NCAA tournament, earning Altman and Mullens $52.5K in bonuses.

  1. Correction says:

    The alleged victim reported the incident to police on 3/14. The report wasn’t filed until 4/28.

  2. Gott Milk. says:

    Read the whole Oregonian article. Last lines

    “Of the 16 players on Oregon’s roster following its season-ending NCAA Tournament loss to Wisconsin on March 22, four remain in good standing: guards Joseph Young, Jalil Abdul-Bassit, forward Elgin Cook and walk-on guard Theo Friedman.”

    Does that mean 75% of the team who played just a month ago are in bad standing or gone? Wow.

    Also, the article does not state if the UO Campus Police or the Eugene police handled this.

  3. Kenny Ocker says:

    Gott Milk, realize that there’s a lot of players whose eligibility expired: Waverly Austin, Mike Moser, Johnathan Loyd, Nick Lucenti, Jason Calliste, Richard Amardi.

    Brian Crow’s early graduation, two transfers and three dismissals make 11.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Is there any link between Geller’s sudden departure and the shit hitting the fan from the sexual assault report? Did Geller counsel suppressing the report until after the NCAA tournament was over?

    • chuck says:

      Good question, because it appears that no one is going to be charged, citing lack of evidence. Does the UOP not have rape kits, I’m pretty sure that EPD would have them, so why is there no evidence?

      • chuck says:

        Never mind, the incident occurred on the 8th of March, she didn’t get around to speaking to an LEO until six days later.

        • uomatters says:

          I’m guessing you’ve never been raped. Now get your sorry ass off my blog.

          • chuck says:

            Just to let you know ahole, my cousin was raped, in high school, and she only got around to speaking of it to me years later. I knew the guy too, so go fuck yourself, and have a good night….

    • uomatters says:

      There were so many reasons to fire Randy Geller, it would be sad to think it took this to get Gottfredson to finally do it.

  5. Anon says:

    I wonder which secretary Rob Mullens got to do his mandatory sexual assault web course for him?

  6. Licensed in CA, OR, and WA says:

    Your President’s response is to say he can’t respond because of FERPA? He needs a new lawyer, and he’s going to need one a lot sooner than July 1st.

    • Gott Gutts? says:

      Gott is an empty suit and we can stop expecting him to lead this campus. He may be a fine administrator but he is no leader and this campus needs a leader.

      When his only response to the campus about an issue that is sure to evoke strong emotions and reactions across the board is a press release that twice refers to a potential rape as “misconduct”, he has failed.

      He’s a tone deaf politician who treads too carefully on every topic to ever lead this campus to greatness – vision takes risk and courage and he just ain’t gott it.. With him at the helm, we will continue to be mired in mediocrity in every way…including the safety of our students.

      He may sometimes do the correct thing. I have no faith that he will ever do the right thing.

      “Wouldn’t be prudent.”

      • awesome0 says:

        At the same time, can’t we hold individuals culpable for their actions rather than blaming institutions. Institutions do change our incentives, but ultimately we make choices.

        • Anonymous says:

          “can’t we hold individuals culpable for their actions rather than blaming institutions”

          No, we should hold individuals *and* institutions culpable. Not “rather than.”

        • Gott Gutts? says:

          I wasn’t blaming an institution, I was blaming an individual for his mealy-mouth response.

  7. Professor John Bonine, School of Law says:

    This is not a problem of three BB players.

    This is not a problem of a BB coach.

    And this is not a problem that only occurs now. The University’s failure to take assertive educational actions to combat a culture of rape is the failure of the entire institution. The University’s failure to have adequate procedures is the after-the-fact issue. What about before-the-fact — or even instead-of-the-fact?

    I don’t know want to know what the University has done. I want to know what President Gottfredson will now do. The buck not only stops at the top; reform starts at the top — with serious money spent to lead to cultural change on campus,

    Can I recommend that young women enroll here? If so, what should I tell them?

    John Bonine

    • Curious says:

      Thanks, Prof Bonine. I have heard that there are faculty at the Law School that work on issues of sexual harassment/violence, but in three years at the school working on these issues I have never met them, or even heard their names. Since this involves their own school, maybe you could encourage them to speak out.

  8. Anonymous says:

    It’s a lucky thing for Mike G that Phil Knight has a soft spot for people who cover-up campus rapes.

  9. WTF says:

    The Senate must refuse Gott’s request to form a committee separate from the IAC to do Gott’s bidding on athletics. Refuse to participate. Paris needs to lead on this issue and ask the IAC to go back to work with or without the participation of the Athletics department and Gott. If they won’t cooperate, conduct independent reviews of athletics and keep publishing the findings to whoever will listen. Embarass them nationally if they won’t have real conversations and real problems.

    Gott is a coward who refuses to engage in the tough questions in a transparent way because he can’t think on his feet. That’s why he can’t stomach a committee that has conflict. But conflict is where we will find the truth – not press releases. Sometimes democracy is messy.

    We owe it to our students to engage in the oversight we said we would.

    • IAC says:

      Isn’t this on Gottfredson’s watch now? Let’s see you handle it, Mike. Come on. You can do it, no? Were watching.

  10. UO Student says:

    I’m left with more questions after reading the 24 page police report.

    Was the tutor, “Cassie”, who the victim talked to a graduate student or UO employee (as I assume most athletics tutors are)? If so, is she a mandated reporter? Did she report when she was notified of an assault?

    Was I the only one disturbed by the cop telling the victim that he wouldn’t have enough evidence to prosecute unless she called her alleged rapists and recorded their phone conversation? Is that not illegal in Oregon?

    Why were the players not interviewed until April? When did the UO know about this?

    • Thomas says:

      Recording phone calls in Oregon is legal

      • “Recording phone calls in Oregon is legal”

        In general, yes. But, there are also many exceptions to the prohibition. And, even if it were illegal to record the call in this case….If it gets someone who may have committed a serious sexual assault off the streets, then I feel comfortable with that.

      • UO Student says:

        According to ORS165.540 as I read it, a person may not “(c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.”

        Considering that the kid running for ASUO president was arrested for recording a conversation in his dorm room (home), how was the victim’s recording of a phone conversation any different?

      • You’re missing the point. As Jezebel said in their article related to this story, “As for the impact this will have on the Ducks’ basketball prospects for 2014-15, who gives a shit?”

        And, read the entire law, there is an exception:

        “The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of this section do not apply to subscribers or members of their family who perform the acts prohibited in subsection (1) of this section in their homes.”

        Similarly, even if recording the conversation was illegal (which if it was in their home it was not), if it can put a rapist in jail: Who gives a shit?

        • UO Student says:

          I give a shit. If the cop asked her to do something illegal wouldn’t any defense attorney worth her salt get any evidence gleaned from those conversations thrown out? How would that help put any rapist in jail?

    • I also have many questions. And, due to student privacy laws, some will likely remain unanswered.

      In terms of one of your questions, “When did the UO know about this?”

      In some sense, they knew immediately upon the report to the Eugene Police Department. The “Eugene” Police officer who investigated the case is actually a UO employee:

      Name: John C Loos
      Department: Police Department
      Title: Police Officer 1
      Office Address: 2141 East 15th Ave
      1230 University of Oregon
      Eugene OR 97403-1230

      That’s only to answer your question. Though, I’m not sure why a UOPD officer be doing the investigation for the City of Eugene.

      Additionally, the police report indicates that the survivor’s father called UOPD prior to her making contact with the EPD.

  11. Publius says:

    The questions raised by the student, above, are excellent. How did this young woman feel–being pushed into those discussions, doing the police dept’s work for it

    As to how the police handled it: Margie Paris is an expert on criminal procedure; I think her views on this would be excellent.

    Some more questions:

    (1) Who put basketball players in touch with the high priced lawyer that now defends them?

    (2) What does the athletic department do to educate its players on conduct related to alcohol, sex, etc.

    (3) For that matter, what does the university do generally to educate students? My understanding is that it has a theater group perform a skit about it (that is optional).

    (Message to the victim: bring a civil action for contributory negligence against the university. Their insurance company might force them, once again, to do more education.)

    (4) And, yes: What did the president/adm know, and when did it know it?

    The chutzpa of this adm is astonishing. The same week it touts one of its faculty (Jennifer Freyd) on the U of O website as a leading voice on sexual assault issues–it is sitting on this mess.

  12. quacko-loco says:

    word on the street is these admin really love to retaliate against anyone that calls them on their bull-shit…… there should be plenty of work in Eugene now for recent law school grads……

  13. Anonymous says:

    The latest word seems to be, “Law enforcement agencies often request that the university wait to take action in order to avoid interference with an open criminal investigation.” There is an interest if law enforcement requested a delay specifically in this case. If so, a public records request should be able to turn it up.

    • UO Student says:

      Only Title IX specifically prohibits universities from delaying their own investigation during criminal proceedings.

      • Publius says:

        This would assume that someone at the U of O knows of Title IX. We are the only institution in the state system of higher education whose Title IX coordinator does not have a law degree. Geller, if I recall, is an authority in intellectual property, with no background in this area. In the past, he has endorsed retaliation against faculty for raising sexual harassment issues–probably because he was not familiar with the law against retaliation.

  14. Score at UO? says:

    Is the UO still using sex and alcohol to recruit athletes through a for-credit “Teamwork” class?

  15. feloniousducksrule says:

    “The university has rigorous internal conduct processes that we follow when we receive a report such as this, as well as legal processes and a moral commitment to our students. ”

    What impotent, incoherent gibberish. I can see why this guy gave up being a professor of criminology to be the head coach of the University of Nike.

  16. javajoe says:

    The 24 page police report is available at Register Guard web site.
    Some observations:
    1. The original report regarding felony behavior by three Lane County residents is done by UO Officer Loos.
    2. I think EPD Officer Ben Hall followed up but I’m not sure since the line that says “investigating officer” has no signature above it. Similarly, the reports are not dated.
    3. The interview with the victim was not taped. The interviews of Artis and Dotson were taped. Austin was not interviewed because his lawyer (Laura Fine Moro) told Officer Hall that she’d interviewed him and that what he said corroborated what Artis and Dotson said. Officer Hall did not pursue it. Officer Hall waited until April 3 to interview Artis, Dotson and Austin.

    4. It appears that neither EPD nor LCDA testing the clothing to see if there was DNA from all three alleged rapists. Although it is reported the victim went to the doctor the next day, no medical reports are discussed.

    5. Officer Hall requested the victim call Dotson and and tape the phone calls, even though non-consensual taping is a Class A misdemeanor in Oregon [ORS 165.450(1)(c).]

    6. The victim’s father works for UO Athletic Department but was not contacted. Joe Young is referenced repeatedly but was not interviewed.

    7. Officer Hall asked the victim if she was drinking. He didn’t bother asking Artis. He did ask Dotson who says he had a few drinks.

    • awesome0 says:

      Taping on phone calls, no crime. Taping on conversation, crime.

    • “5. Officer Hall requested the victim call Dotson and and tape the phone calls, even though non-consensual taping is a Class A misdemeanor in Oregon [ORS 165.450(1)(c).]”

      You are actually referencing ORS 165.540. And, there is a homeowner exemption, see Checkley V. Boyd at

      There the court ruled that you can even tape *other people’s conversations* in your own home and it is lawful. Further, any evidence obtained in the recording is admissible.

      More to the point, I don’t feel comfortable and I would be cautious about any commenters making any allegations regarding the survivor in this case.

  17. Stick to the facts says:

    Read the statement by DA Alex Gardner. It is very very detailed (and graphic), but it is absolutely clear why there are no charges on a criminal level. What the university now needs to do is clarify what is going to happen to these students at the student conduct level? Clearly those proceedings are subject to FERPA protections, but the UO must clarify what our procedures are for these kinds of allegations. One of the other things I desperately hope that this kicks off is a solid discussion among the faculty and administration as to what we intend to do about incorporating off campus conduct into our student conduct policy. Let’s face it, these students live off of campus for three+ years and we have happily let the EPD deal with these issues, yet they have profound implications for the culture on this campus. the safety of our students, and the ramifications of consequences that students do (or do not) face.

  18. Howard Baker says:

    What did the President know, and when did he know it?

  19. UO Student says:

    Does this article say that the investigation was closed on 4/24– that the UO was cleared to act on 4/24? But there was no action until 5/5?

    “The University of Oregon first learned of the allegations from the alleged victim’s father on March 9, as reported in the released police report. Upon receiving information such as this, the university’s procedures are to immediately provide services and support. Prior to the NCAA Tournament, the Eugene Police Department told the university that if it took investigative or administrative action, it would jeopardize the integrity of the criminal investigation and, therefore, requested that the university not take action at that time. The university received the police report on April 24, after the criminal investigation was complete and the District Attorney declined to prosecute. Due to Federal privacy laws, the university cannot provide further details regarding its actions at this time.”

    • Emergency says:

      UO can act only after a police investigation is closed (April)? Really? Even in an emergency? Wasn’t there an emergency concern of safety for other female students as early as March 9 when the University learned of the rape allegation? Who decides whether there is an emergency safety situation regarding UO students — the UO Administration or the Eugene Police Department?

  20. Sharon says:

    The Lane County DA often justifies the decision to “no-file” by saying “we didn’t think we could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.” But that is not the appropriate standard. First of all, that is a judgment that can only be made by a jury or a judge. Second, if that were true, the DA would win 100% of the cases prosecuted. Third, in misdemeanors, all that’s needed is a “probable cause statement.” Fourth, ORS 132.390 states “The grand jury may find an indictment when all the evidence before it, taken together, is such as in its judgment would, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury.” This standard is much lower than “DA is 100% sure it can prove case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Also, it is worth noting that the LCDA prosecuted Angelica Swartout for murdering an infant that almost certainly never existed. The bottom line is that the DA is being dishonest when he says he can’t prosecute. He should have presented the case to the grand jury. The DA also doesn’t mention how implausible it is to suggest that a woman would consent to having sex with three men at a party. There are close to 15 other examples where a UO athlete was arrested and the DA dropped the charges or reduced them. The reason charges were not filed against the three Ducks is that the DA cares more about currying favor with Duck fans than he cares about enforcing the law.

    • BB says:

      Sharon, I appreciate many of the questions you’ve raised, but must take issue with your suggestion that the DA ought to have mentioned how implausible it would be for someone to willingly engage in sexual activity with three people at a party. I think you are letting your beliefs about sexuality and decency cloud matters in that regard.

  21. anissa says:

    “Prior to the NCAA Tournament, the Eugene Police Department told the university that if it took investigative or administrative action, it would jeopardize the integrity of the criminal investigation and, therefore, requested that the university not take action at that time.”

    I’m trying to reconcile this. University administrative procedures run concurrently to criminal investigations all the time. They have to in order to do things like move an accuser and a suspect out of the same dorm and classes. In fact, delaying those type of actions is a big violation of Title IX.

  22. Obligated to investigate says:

    From page 15

    A criminal investigation does not relieve a school of its independent obligation to conduct its own investigation – nor may a school wait for a criminal case to conclude to proceed.

  23. Jane says:

    “Since consent is the issue, not whether the sex acts took place, DNA is of little value.” DA report
    If there was no DNA from any of the three alleged assailants on the victim’s clothes, I think it would make a jury more likely to acquit. If there was DNA from all three on the inside of the underwear, it might make the jury a teensy weensy bit skeptical of the claim that it was consensual since presumably, if you’re going to have sex with three men in a bathroom, you’d take your underwear off. If there is DNA at 5 different locations on a blouse, jurors might find that relevant to the consent issue. Jurors like to see physical evidence. The DA did not have the decency to obtain a single shred of physical evidence. He appears not to have obtained the doctor’s report from the victim’s visit on March 14, described in the police report. This guy says a lot of things that insult your intelligence, but “We didn’t do a DNA analysis because there’s no dispute the acts occurred” might be the most offensive.

  24. underemployed lawyer says:

    The DA should be ashamed for not taking this one on. Really. For a reality check on how frequently alcohol factors into sexual assault, and why declining to prosecute because of the victim’s intoxication, lack of resistance, or failure to remove herself from the situation is unacceptable, read this handy guide for DA’s on prosecuting “alcohol facilitated rape” (yes, it happens so frequently there is special terminology for the event). The criminal justice system has failed this young woman. The University should not.

  25. Recall Gardner? says:

    DA Gardner is subject to voter recall.

    Here’s how:

    Looks like about 22,000 valid signatures would be required.

  26. Sandra says:

    I suspect that if someone is brave enough to start the recall process, the DA would choose to resign. Once the existence of the petition became public and signatures started to accumulate, people would start remembering other outrageous actions. In March, he failed to prosecute Ricardo Chaney for weapons and drug charges. Chaney went on to murder a retired UO dean and Mendocino CO Sheriff’s Deputy. The DA said the decision to “no-file” was because he didn’t have enough money to prosecute “low level crimes” But if you go to the Lane County Circuit Court docket, you’ll see he’s prosecuted a dozen people for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana since then, as well as other minor crimes. His record is pretty troubling but no one pays attention. A petition would make people pay attention and I really think he’d resign after a couple of thousand signatures were obtained. If not, I’m sure you could get 22,000. Excuse me, you’ll only need 21,999 because I want to be number 1 on the form.