Rape

This University Cleared a Male Student of Rape, Then Re-Tried and Convicted Him Via Insane System

Judge says John Doe's lawsuit against James Madison University should proceed.

|

Fighting
Dreamstime

James Madison University initially cleared a male student of wrongdoing in a sexual assault dispute. But after his accuser appealed the decision, administrators put him through a wildly unfair additional procedure in which he was not allowed to challenge the entirety of the new evidence against him—or even appear at the second hearing.

He was suspended for five years: JMU wanted to give his accuser as much time as she needed to finish school before he could return.

The accused student, "John Doe," is now suing JMU, and a judge has ruled that his lawsuit—which alleges abridgment of due process—can proceed.

To be frank, the accusation is among the more dubious ones I've ever read about. Doe and his accuser, "Jane Roe," met during an impromptu gathering at a mutual friend's dorm on August 22, 2014. They first had sex that very night. They exchanged friendly text messages the next day, which were later provided as evidence in Doe's favor at his hearing, according to the judge's decision. They eventually had sex a second time.

Some days after that, Roe visited Doe in his room and discovered another woman sitting on his bed. Roe left immediately.

They had sex two more times after that—Roe was the initiator both times, according to the mutually agreed upon facts of the case.

But on November 6, 2014, the university informed Doe that someone had accused him of sexual misconduct. He did not immediately learn that his accuser was Roe, though he was barred from having any further contact with her. The university also moved him to another dorm against his will.

Doe was eventually permitted to review the charges against him, though he didn't actually receive a copy—nor was her permitted to make copies. All he could do was take notes as he read it.

Roe's residential advisor and Title IX coordinator had submitted reports agreeing with her contention that their very first sexual encounter wasn't consensual. This logic seems to rest on the disputed fact that Roe was drunk at the time.

At the actual hearing—which was attended by both Doe and Roe—Roe's roommate testified that she did not believe "Roe was drunk or otherwise incapacitated when she saw her shortly after her sexual encounter."

A three-person panel sided with Doe and cleared him of sexual misconduct. But Roe appealed.

At this point, the proceedings veered into Franz Kafka territory. Doe was barely able to review the new evidence against him, and was not allowed to even appear at the second hearing. The new evidence undermined Roe's roommate's testimony, but at no point was the roommate called upon to defend her original statements about Roe's lack of incapacitation. JMU went to great lengths to accommodate Roe—even granting her several extensions on submitting new evidence—while making it all but impossible for Doe to defend himself. As a result, he was found responsible for sexual misconduct and suspended from the university for five and a half years.

Given that this case appears to rest on whether or not Roe was drunk during the encounter, the accusation seems extremely dubious. Even if Roe had been drinking, mere intoxication does not render a person incapable of consenting to sex. It certainly looks like the university conflated intoxication with incapacitation, and that Roe ultimately failed to prove either state.

The decision by Judge Elizabeth Dillon does not take a stance on the merits of the accusation, of course. But it does allow Doe's lawsuit against JMU to proceed, and that's a good thing. As The Washington Examiner's Ashe Schow writes:

While this ruling is not as strong as the recent one against Brandeis University, it is a positive step forward to see federal judges now allowing these lawsuits to move forward. People deserve due process, no matter where they are accused of a crime (and sexual assault is still a crime in this country). Those who are branded as rapists need a proper chance to defend themselves.

This case illustrates the manifest unfairness of adjudicating sexual assault in such a manner. If Doe is guilty, then a rapist is free to enroll in a different university. But if he is innocent—my strong suspicion, based on the evidence—he was subjected to a wholly farcical second procedure in which his rights were trampled and his good name dragged through the mud. Rape is a crime, but violating an accused person's civil liberties is a crime, too. The Title IX process mandated by the federal government treats neither thing with the seriousness it deserves. [Related: Judge Sides with Gay Brandeis Student Guilty of 'Serious Sexual Transgression' for Kissing Sleeping Boyfriend]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

118 responses to “This University Cleared a Male Student of Rape, Then Re-Tried and Convicted Him Via Insane System

  1. He should sue the Obama administration as well. I hope he’s going for big money.

    1. At some point the universities will simply expel the student and hand them a huge check rather than face the continued court losses and costs. Sounds like this could become a good sector for an attorney…….*starts to dust off the old lawyer degree*

      1. Yes, exactly. And it is not an area that the typical lefty trial lawyer will be interested in. Heck, we may get a whole bunch of new Scalia’s all funded by the endowments of the universities. Pretty cool. Of course, that may be while the state of CT is going after Yale’s endowment, as a preventative measure…

      2. At some point the universities will simply expel the student and hand them a huge check

        Seems like a wonderful con for a couple to play on universities.

        1. What’s the downside?

          They brought this on themselves.

          1. The downside is they’d be committing an immoral act and stealing from third parties.

  2. The university also moved him to another dorm against his will.

    Why? Was she on the same floor? In the same building?

    Because if not, this really gives the game away…

    1. They were probably in the same dorm but different floors. That was how it was when I was at JMU. The university railroaded one of my buddies for something similar years and years ago. Jilted ex was upset about him having a new girlfriend and accused him of this exact thing. University refused to let one of my fraternity brothers testify on his behalf (he and his date accidentally walked in on this couple and confirmed it was 100% consensual).

      1. You don’t seem to get it. A woman can withdraw consent at any time. Even afer the fact. Because rape kultur, patriarchy, cis-shitlords, etc. etc.

        1. There actually is precedent for retroactive withdrawal of consent; while it may not stand up to the rigors of criminal law [due process and all that] it is certainly being applied in the campus kangaroo courts. According to one site it is “the way they [being the woman, because who said anything about this being fair and just] experience the event, past, present, and future” that matters.

          In other words, if a guy wants to be sure to start and finish their education at a particular school, find your poontang elsewhere. I don’t care what you think, it’s a rape culture out there, and SJWs and the federal government are going to make it right.

          1. Might as well just be a straight guy at an all male school, so that you never have to look at, kiss or any anyways touch a female until you graduate.

            Check the George Mason case. He did it with a non-student off campus and she still managed to have a Title IX complain filed against him, with threat of expulsion.

          2. So what’s to stop the male from withdrawing consent?

            1. Uh, their gender…

            2. Only male sexuality is banned.

          3. Saying the Feds are going to protect you from rape is like saying the IBW (International Brotherhood of Weasels) is going to protect your chicken coop from predators.

        2. I find it funny in the military we are allowing women in ground combat roles because we are equal. In colleges we are giving women an exaggerated level of regard in Title 10 cases because they are evidently all a bunch of victims that need special protection.

        3. Makes you wonder how is that people with no logical thinking whatsoever end up being administrators at universities.

        4. Makes you wonder how is that people with no logical thinking whatsoever end up being administrators at universities.

  3. University Dean: Robby, we have to kick you out.
    Robby (runs fingers through hair): Sure. Wait. Whaaaa? Why?
    University Dean: Well, it’s…

    Robby runs fingers through hair.

    University Dean: ….your hair.

    Robby (runs finger through hair. Grins): What about it?

    University Dean: It’s…

    Robby runs fingers through hair.

    University Dean: Distracting.

    Reaches for Robby’s arm.

    UD: Stop that!

    Robby (still trying to run fingers through hair): Stop what?

    UD (straightens up): Quite frankly we’re concerned your hair will rape someone.

    Robby (runs finger through hair. Stares into Dean’s soul).

    UD: Do you know what this means?

    Robby (runs fingers through hair): Did Ana put you up to this?

    1. If he runs his fingers through his hair that often, there won’t be much of it left before too long.

      1. Oh, it is quite resilient. Quite.

      2. I’m also wondering how his fingers survive that.

      3. kbolino|4.6.16 @ 7:50AM|#

        “If he runs his fingers through his hair that often, there won’t be much of it left before too long.”

        It’s ok since it was his pubic hair. He’s a real man with no manscaping.

    2. Robby’s hair is the new Jacket.

      1. Robby’s Hair and Jacket should mate.

    3. Bravo Suga…Rufus!?!

  4. Given that this case appears to rest on whether or not Roe was drunk during the encounter, the accusation seems extremely dubious.

    And what if he was intoxicated too? Why is only her intoxication relevant?

    1. They had sex two more times after that?Roe was the initiator both times, according to the mutually agreed upon facts of the case.

      Can she prove he was sober each time? Otherwise: RAPE!!!!

      1. Then they have to expel her for eleven years. 5 1/2 for the same punishment Doe got, and then another 5/12 to ensure Doe can finish his degree when he returns without having to worry about running into his rapist on campus.

        1. Eleven years? That’s single digit, right?

          1. Eleventy.

    2. Penis

    3. In leftist-logic, if he was intoxicated too, that only made him even more of an evil rapist. Alcohol works differently on protected classes, ya know.

  5. We used to have to read Orwell and Kafka in college, now they just experience it.

    1. it’s like virtual reality, but even realer!

    2. Nice one, Drake,

  6. ….still waiting on these fucking harpies to admit their “movement” has nothing to do with equality or justice and that it’s all about ham fisted, FYTW, social engineering

    I’ll be polishing up the woodchipper this weekend if anyone would like to join. We can caravan out.

    1. The parties do not disclose Roe’s real name in any of their submissions, and the court today orders that they not do so for the remainder of the case.

      This is some Kafka bullshit.

      1. So no cross-exam, eh.

        I guess the rules have changed…

        1. What is there to cross examine, the male is an obvious rapperist, case closed.

          1. the male is an obvious rapperist

            Duh, he’s a male. What more proof do you need?

      2. Victim Protection statutes are bullshit? I agree with you that the “chilling effect” of these types of cases is present here and not minimal, but the benefit of statutes like these allow sexual assault victims get as close to private adjudication as they can without violating the public’s right to witness the process of justice; it is paternalistic, granted, but in the cases of minors or humiliated victims, this is a protection that had been both sides of the aisle can agree upon. If you are a “burn-it-down” type of liberal Terry-an, elect a lawmaker that believes public right to information trumps individual right to privacy against potentially humiliating or exposing information.

        E.g.: “And when the alleged rape occurred, did he use two fingers, or three? Remember, this is a permanent public record; be honest, we don’t want you to perjure yourself.” “I don’t know, I was tied up, beaten, and it was dark.” “Please focus, m’am. We need to know how many fingers were placed inside your genitals, for the record.” “Three?” “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, my client could not have been the one who raped this woman, as he has a religious objection to using fingers to manipulate genitals.”

        1. I’m beginning to think that you’re suffering under delusions of cleverness.

          1. Not enough cerebral activity to have delusions.

            1. Oh, it’ll be along shortly to tell us just how clever it really is. We just lack the tools to truly appreciate it.

              1. Wait, a Reason commentor wrote that? I assumed it was the famed pro-rape tract of Bernie Sanders!

        2. How do we know there’s a victim when it’s still being adjudicated? I know you weren’t arguing this point, but if a case can be made for alleged victim protection statutes, and I think one can be made, they should apply to all victims, and only if they also apply to alleged perpetrators. Why should only certain classes of alleged victims be allowed anonymity, and no perpetrators? That’s my biggest problem with these laws/rules.

          1. It isn’t really arguing anything. Don’t mistake the turgid bloviation of its posts for a cogent thought or a rational, thought-out argument.

            It’s essentially a dumber, less entertaining version of Ken Schultz.

  7. Even if Roe had been drinking, mere intoxication does not render a person incapable of consenting to sex.

    Exactly. It’s the mere *possibility* of intoxication.

  8. …Roe’s roommate testified that she did not believe “Roe was drunk or otherwise incapacitated when she saw her shortly after her sexual encounter.”

    SISTER BEFORE MISTERS, COME ON

    1. Tells you how pleasant a person Roe must be, if her roommate is willing to testify against her claim.

      1. In fairness, the roommate might just have the quaint idea that she is obligated to tell the truth in such a proceeding.

  9. But on November 6, 2014, the university informed Doe that someone had accused him of sexual misconduct. He did not immediately learn that his accuser was Roe, though he was barred from having any further contact with her. The university also moved him to another dorm against his will.

    Mr. Doe, someone–and we’re not saying who–has accused you of rape. In a completely unrelated matter, you’re forbidden from talking to (name of woman) or contacting her in any way. We’re also moving you to a dorm well away from hers.

    1. That had to have been an interesting conversation.

      1. OTOH, no one can prove Mr. Doe was not intoxicated.

        1. During the conversation, I mean.

    2. Sherlock Holmes couldn’t have figured that one out.

      I’m guessing he did not get an attorney early on in the process. Had he I believe it would have proceeded differently.

      I wonder if in lieu of money from the lawsuit he asks for all involved to be fired with cause and have their pensions stripped which direction the Univ would take.

      1. I’m guessing he did not get an attorney early on in the process.

        I don’t about JMU, but a lot of these sexual assault kangaroo courts don’t allow the accused to have lawyers present. Because it’s not a court of law, it’s just an exercise to railroad as many men out of college and ruin as many men’s lives as possible.

  10. The old trial in absentia trick. Works every time.

  11. So the complainant’s contention is that this guy raped her the first time they had sex (since she was drunk even though there is no clear evidence of that, and even though that doesn’t necessarily constitute rape). And she then had consensual sex with him several times thereafter?

    Is this common for rape victims? Some sort of Jedi Mind Truck that convinces them that they *want* to have sex with the guy who initially raped them? Is The Patriarchy really this powerful?

    1. Instant Stockholm Syndrome.

    2. He had “Trump 2016” written on his dorm room marker board. What could she do?

    3. Is this common for rape victims? Some sort of Jedi Mind Truck that convinces them that they *want* to have sex with the guy who initially raped them?

      It’s because womyn are emotionally fragile creatures incapable of rationally choosing whether or not to agree to sex with a man. At least that’s the implication of the SJW “thought” process on this matter. And these people call themselves feminists.

      1. If women are this fragile, they definitely need men to take care of them, and they shouldn’t get to vote, or be allowed out in public unescorted. Owning property and holding down jobs is probably too stressful for the poor dears, too.

      2. They also plainly think that womyn can’t hold their liquor.

  12. Vindication is insufficient if you are wrongly accused and convicted in these farcical proceedings. The false and misleading accusations and improper prosecution ruins your life. You cannot recover what you have lost even if you are vindicated. A return to proper adjudication of sexual impropriety complaints and not kangaroo courts is what is needed.

    1. Yes – But I believe the only way they get there is repeatedly losing multi-$million lawsuits to falsely accused men. Yale, Brandies, and James Madison are all on their way to embarrassing court losses and writing big checks to the men they harmed.

    2. Yeah, but on the plus side he can come out this with a sizable chunk of JMU’s endowment.

      Personally if I were in this situation, I’d be suing for the exact amount of their entire endowment, and would absolutely, under no circumstances agree to a lesser settlement out of court.

  13. His name is John Doe and her name is Jane Doe. Are they related? At some point did they marry? Me am confuzed.

    1. Jane Roe.

    2. Doen’t be a doe’ass.

  14. You can get him if you really want, bt you must try, try and try, try and try. You’ll succeed at last. You just know it, girl. Go, Feminist Sex Council.(“You can get it if you really want” — bad idea, John. Bad credo.) — By the way, does Twitter have one of these yet?

  15. This is perfectly reasonable. You have to keep doing it until you get the right result, no?

  16. This University Cleared a Male Student of Rape, Then Re-Tried and Convicted Him Via Insane System

    AND YOU WONT BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

    oh, wait

    1. Double jeopardy?

      Unless we are no longer in America, once you a cleared of a crime, unless entirely new facts come to light, you can not be prosecuted twice for the same crime. An appeal must be based on substantial new and compelling evidence.

      I smell a real lawsuit, in a real court brewing.
      Ms. Doe and the school had better lawyer-up.
      They about to be taken to the cleaners.

      1. Most appeals are based on errors of law by the original court, and new evidence is only allowed in extra-ordinary cases.

        1. Yes, of CONVICTIONS. Once acquitted, there is no appeal. Otherwise, they’d STILL be trying the OJ case.

  17. I think the most infuriating thing about this shit is the way that the liars keep getting off scot-free. Jackie the UVA wannabe raped girl, the Mattress girl from Columbia, and this liar from JMU all get the attention from their feminist enablers, but it’s the taxpayer or the other students who eventually pay out the ass when their victims go to court.

    -jcr

  18. Clearly this is a case of “regret sex”.
    While unfortunate, regret sex is miles away from sexual misconduct, unless we are talking about her misconduct.
    The male student body has a right to know which females to steer clear of, otherwise future entrapment is a clear possibility.

    1. Regret Sex Questionnaire
      (1) Will you vote for Hillary because she has a vagina?
      (2) If you sleep with a man you later realized was a mistake will you consider walking around campus woth a matress on your back?
      (3) Do you think the Duke men’s lacross team got away with something?
      (50) Do you believe you can rescind sexual consent afterwards?

      If the woman answers “yes” to any of the above fifty questions it is best to avoid any contact with her.

    2. Clearly this is a case of “regret sex”.

      More like “jilted revenge slander”.

      If you get up in the morning as say “ew, I did that?”, then it’s regret sex.

      If you pursue the person for sex multiple times thereafter, and only “discover” that the first sex was rape after you see the person alone with another woman, then it’s “jilted revenge slander”.

  19. I think these sexual misconduct hearings need to have some kind of catchy name that embodies the fairness given to both sides – like, maybe, Star Chamber?

  20. A friend of mine was having drunk sex with his then girlfriend. He threw up in her bed while doing the nasty. Two days later her women studies professor convinced her that it was rape because it was like super gross and stuff. She filed a police report. The cops told my apparently retarded friend that if he wrote the girl an apology letter, everything would go away. He signed the pre-written letter which was then used as a confession. He got a year in prison and was then deported to Mexico.

  21. ??Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.path40.com

  22. If Due Process isn’t an endangered species within the groves of academe, it should be so declared.

  23. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  24. “Is the defendant male?”
    “Yes, your honor.”
    “GUILTY AS CHARGED!”

  25. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.ReportMax90.com

    1. “sex creep”

      I like it!

  26. This is why all proceedings should begin from the assumption that the woman is lying.

    It would be nice if we could make the opposite assumption, but the SJWs have rendered that impossible.

    1. All process should begin with the assumption that the accused is innocent. This is because the posibilities are

      1. The accused did the deed.
      2. The accuser lied
      3. The accuser was mistaken on the event.
      4. The accuser was mistaken on the identity of the accused.

      So in 3 out of 4 posibilities. The person is innocent. Is not just to begin with the assumption is guilty.

      That and:
      – Is usually possible to prove you did something. (Usually but not always)
      – Is nearly impossible to prove you didn’t do something.

      I wonder why people without a single indication of being able to do logical thinking end up being Administrators at universities.

  27. The Fifth Amendment, which contains the double jeopardy clause, was written by James Madison. Anyone else pick up on the irony of James Madison University retrying this student after he was acquitted?

    1. Didn’t pursue it. (Nice, that you did.) Was considering adding that this type of pseudo-rape does not involve physical sex differences. A man’s greater physical power plays no role. This is a matter psychological sex-differences. Girl gets attached, wants long-term relationship, guy doesn’t. Sexual conflict.

  28. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    http://www.MaxPost30.com

  29. Want to earn from home by working basic work using your laptop for 2 to 4 h on daily basis, get paid 62 bucks fifty-eight minute ZQ and get a paycheck every week and choose yourself your working time?Its original site…BNH509

    http://www.payability70.com

  30. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  31. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/X6JhyG

  32. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    http://www.MaxPost30.com

  33. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  34. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  35. Simple solution: Sue them into oblivion.

    The board of directors of an university only understand one thing. MONEY. If the decision cost the university money as well as a lost of face, they will fire the administrator.

    1. my step-mum just bought a new cream Toyota Highlander only from working off a pc… browse around this website

      ??????www.paypost50.com

  36. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  37. First of all, it breaks my heart knowing that someone was rapped. No one on this earth deserves such cruelty. It’s just not fair. Students’ life has to be filled with studies and joy. Campuses can no longer be called a safe place. Honestly, I would rather go to essays writing services online instead walking a few steps on a campus when it is dark outside. I wonder why no one does anything about the security. Plus, we have to check students every once in a while. I know that we are fed up with tests, but I see no other way out.

  38. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  39. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.