Hennepin County (Minn.) Attorney Mike Freeman has again declined to file criminal charges against University of Minnesota football players after a reviewing a university report that found a student's claims of sexual assault valid.
Freeman said that veteran prosecutors, victim witness advocates of his office reviewed the university's Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA) report that resulted in the suspension of 10 Gopher football players after a student's claims of sexual assault from the Sept. 2 incident were found valid by a university investigator.
"That report shined a light on what can only be described as deplorable behavior." Freeman said in a statement. "And while the university's investigation included a handful of new interviews, the information elicited was not significantly different from the information presented to this office following a thorough investigation by the Minneapolis Police Department."
Freeman said that reviewing the EOAA report and comparing it to the MPD investigation shows "no new significant evidence" that would enable prosecutors to bring charges against any of the players. He pointed out that prosecutors have a higher standard of proof than the University.
"As a result, our decision not to bring charges remains unchanged." Freeman said.
Freeman declined to comment further, citing ongoing appeals by the suspended players.
Freeman initially declined to file criminal charges in October, citing "insufficient, admissible evidence" to prove a sexual assault occurred beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, the 22-page report by Minneapolis Police that influenced that decision was far less thorough than the 80-page report by an investigator with the U's Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA).
Last week, Freeman agreed to review the EOAA investigation.
The university suspended 10 players, of whom five face possible expulsion, after the release of the report.
Minneapolis police initially investigated after a university student accused several players of sexual assault during the early morning hours of Sept. 2 in the bedroom of one player's off-campus apartment. In its report, completed in about two weeks, an MPD investigator reviewed three brief cellphone videos filmed at the beginning of the incident and wrote that the "sexual contact appears entirely consensual."
The EOAA report, which was made public when it was obtained and released by KSTP-TV, found after a four-month investigation that the alleged victim's account was "more credible" than the players'.
Lee Hutton, an attorney representing the players, said the EOAA recommended expulsion for Ray Buford, Carlton Djam, KiAnte Hardin, Dior Johnson and Tamarion Johnson; one-year suspensions from the university for Seth Green, Kobe McCrary, Mark Williams and Antoine Winfield Jr., and probation for Antonio Shenault. The players have appealed the suspensions and have denied assaulting the woman.
Following the suspensions, Gopher football players announced their intention to boycott Tuesday's Holiday Bowl in San Diego in an act of solidarity with their punished teammates. The team ended the boycott the weekend of Dec. 16, reportedly after reviewing details of the EOAA report.
One of the witnesses interviewed by the EOAA included a football player who told the EOAA that he and others were listening at the door when he recalled "from the stuff [the woman] said, it didn't seem like she was into it. She said something and [the men present] decided it was messed up."
That statement proved to be crucial in the school's actions in finding the woman's account of Sept. 2 more credible than the players' statements.
The university also uncovered evidence indicating that the players "deliberately attempted to impede the university's fact-finding efforts," according to its report.
But the university has more leverage over students, who have to talk to EOAA investigators or face violating the student conduct code, which could result in anything from a warning to an expulsion.
University investigators also had a different standard _ the preponderance of evidence _ meaning they had to determine whether more likely than not the assault happened.
