Doe v. Allee – Sexual Assault Investigations

1 Doe v. Allee – Sexual Assault Investigations Doe v. Allee - 30 Cal. App. 5th 1036, 242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109 (2019) case occurred when former University of Southern California student John Doe accused his university of unfair hearing. In the aftermath of the case, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California ruled that when a student faces severe disciplinary actions due to sexual misconduct accusations and the adjudication of the case is dependent on witnesses’ credibility, the university must provide a mechanism for the accused student to cross-examine the witnesses before a neutral fact finder can be allowed to make credibility determinations (JUSTIA US Law, n.d). In the article on CSU sexual assault investigations, President Jeffrey Armstrong showed extreme discontent with the new ruling. He believed that giving students accused of sexual misconduct opportunities to cross-examine witnesses, especially their victims who have been exposed to trauma, would induce more trauma.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

2 He also aired concerns that the new requirement would prevent many victims from reporting sexual misconduct. However, this ruling is in line with the sixth amendment, which gives all citizens, including defendants, the right to a fair hearing and seeks assistance from an attorney. This law just creates a level ground for both parties in sexual misconduct cases, as required by the law. The fact that the USC president was not pleased with the ruling is not surprising since it is normal for some laws to offend some people.

President Jeffrey Armstrong had genuine concerns. It would be traumatizing for a student who has been sexually assaulted to be made to answer questions from her abuser. Having to do this may also make some victims avoid reporting sexual misconduct. However, it would be even more traumatizing for a falsely accused student to suffer due to a lack of fair hearing. False rape allegations are a major problem. According to Symposium on false allegations of rape1, between 2.9 to 10.3 per cent of all rape allegations or roughly one out of 10, allegations are false. Some motives for false rape allegations include revenge and leveraging legal cases like child custody.

Another problem with President Jeffrey Armstrong's reaction was the failure to comment on the fact that the court determined that the University did not offer John Roe a fair hearing. He only said that the university would be forced to implement the new rule without apologizing for what the university did.

Even though victims' emotional health is a great concern, other measures like counselling can be employed to help them handle the trauma. Denying the accused persons the opportunity to adequately defend themselves not only denies them their constitutional rights but also leaves loopholes for injustice. There are situations where cross-examination can help in clarification.

For instance, the victims may have been abused, but she exaggerated the degree of assault or Lisak, D. Gardinier, L., Nicksa, S., Cote, A. (2023). False Allegations of Sexual Assualt: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases 16(12) 1318–1334 1

3 added other false charges. This may happen when the accuser has some underlying grudges against the accused, like the woman who was caught on surveillance camera hitting herself to frame her husband of domestic violence2. In cases involving love triangles and betrayal in relationships, the accusers may add false allegations out of anger. The cross-examination gives the defendant the opportunity to give their side of the story. There is also a possibility of two parties engaging in consensual sex; then, one party starts claiming that the sexual encounter was not-consensual out of fear of consequences like being sacked.

In John Doe v. USC’s Title X investigator Kegan Allee’s case, the court determined that Doe was denied a fair hearing. There were two witnesses identified, Mia and Julia, whom Roe chatted with and from the chats, it was clear that Roe was worried that she would be sacked if what she did was discovered, just as Doe had alleged. Another witness, identified as D.N, said that he and his girlfriend heard Roe 'moaning', which sounded like normal pleasurable sex sounds. Dr Allee, however, failed to look for Mia and Julia to hear their testimony. Doe was denied the chance for any hearing or to challenge the veracity of witnesses against him.

Kelly-Ann-Mills. (2018, December 3). Woman punches herself in face 'to frame husband for domestic violence'. mirror. Retrieved March 30, 2023, from https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/woman-punchesherself-face-to-13681772 2

4

References JUSTIA US Law. (n.d.). Doe v. Allee. Retrieved March 30, 2023, from https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2019/b283406.html