She Accused Him Of Sexual Assault Seven Months After Their Encounter. A Judge Just Gave Him A Court Win. | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This older, but yet to be published post is finally being presented now as an archivable history of the current events of these days that will become the real history of tomorrow.

Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Ashe Schow.

    A male Texas A&M University-Kingsville student was expelled after a female student claimed he sexually assaulted her because she was too drunk to consent. The student sued, and a judge just granted a temporary restraining order, setting aside the school's determination and allowing the student's lawsuit to move forward.

    The male student, referred to in court documents reviewed by The Daily Wire as John Doe, met the female student, who will be referred to as Jane Doe, via Twitter in May 2020. Between May and September of that year, the two messaged regularly and became friends. In July 2020, Jane introduced John to her family, according to John's lawsuit. Jane's family apparently assumed the two were having sex, with someone even asking John a sexually explicit question.

    Jane regularly drank alcohol, like most college students, so John said he was not surprised she agreed to hang out with him at his place and drink alcohol. To John's knowledge, all Jane had to drink that night was three Smirnoff Ice's and a shot of vodka throughout the four-and-a-half-hour period they were together. John says in his lawsuit that the only change he noticed in Jane was that "she was more honest and candid in their conversation."

    According to John's lawsuit, he at some point "playfully spanked" Jane, who gave him no indication she was uncomfortable. At another point, John placed his hand on Jane's thigh. She didn't object, and the two proceeded to have sex on the couch with Jane on top of John. The two then moved into the bedroom, with Jane walking on her own without needing any insistence. John noted in his lawsuit that at no point during their time together did Jane slur her words, struggle to walk, or show any other signs that she was not in her right mind.

    The two continued to have sex in the bedroom. Afterward, Jane allegedly went into the bathroom and threw up before calling her friend to pick her up.

    John says in his lawsuit that Jane did not appear upset when she left and did not express any issue with their encounter.

    Seven months later, Jane reported to Texas A&M that John sexually assaulted her. Before that, she tried to report him to the police department, and the case went before a grand jury, which no-billed the case, meaning they did not find enough evidence to prosecute.

    Despite the grand jury finding, Texas A&M plowed ahead with its own "investigation," which, thanks to Obama-era fearmongering and the #MeToo movement, pretty much guarantees an accused student will be found responsible. While the Trump administration issued guidelines requiring schools to provide basic due process rights to college students, most schools have not stopped denying these rights and steamrolling ahead on dubious accusations.

    For John, he alleges that Texas A&M accepted Jane's version of events as true, shifting the burden of proof onto him for an encounter where there were no witnesses and the evidence came down to a case of he said, she said. Though Jane had no evidence for her version of events, John says Texas A&M took her word for it and ignored exculpatory evidence.

    The university's own policy says that the burden of proof is not on the accused party, yet it was in John's case, he alleges. John was not able to secure counsel until just before the hearing, but he was not allowed an extension to consult with his attorney or gather evidence such as phone records, police reports, the no-bill ruling from the grand jury, or other documents. He was also not able to consult with experts regarding the evidence against him.

    John also alleges that he was not allowed to present evidence to school investigators during the investigation and that the evidence he attempted to provide was refused.

    His lawsuit also alleges that neither he nor the hearing panel were able to view the recorded statements of John, Jane, or any witnesses, but were instead only provided summaries of these conversations. An unsigned "statement" from John was also entered into evidence, even though he said the statement was inaccurate and written by the university. He was not allowed to testify why or how the statement was inaccurate.

    Neither John nor his attorneys were allowed to ask Jane pertinent questions about her alcohol use to determine whether she was really too drunk to consent. One of Jane's friend's testified that she had seen Jane drink five shots of Hypnotiq on a previous occasion without showing signs of incapacitation.

    That was another issue with the investigation.

    Texas A&M policy states that a student can't provide consent when "incapacitated," yet Jane never said she was incapacitated nor did she or anyone else provide any evidence that she was incapacitated instead of merely intoxicated. The school did include a wildly inaccurate calculation of what Jane's blood alcohol content (BAC) would have been after drinking with John, but John says the calculation was based on an incorrect alcohol/volume percentage for Smirnoff Ice and - he says - the false assumption that Jane had a shot of moonshine with each Smirnoff Ice. John says only he had the shot of moonshine. John insists the BAC calculation from the school was "false, not empirically based, unsubstantiated and highly misleading," yet the "fake" evidence was considered when determining his guilt. John says he was denied the ability to have an expert explain the flaws in the BAC calculation.

    When John was expelled he filed a lawsuit, stating he had been discriminated against based on his gender and that Texas A&M violated its own policies when finding him responsible.

    U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos agreed, stating:

    It is in the public interest to punish those who perpetrate sexual assaults and, consequently, to deter such acts and protect others. At the same time, it is in the public interest to ensure that life-altering judgments are not inflicted wantonly and irretrievably when not properly supported. The public interest is thus served by maintaining the status quo pending a fuller evaluation of the issues in this case.

    The Daily Wire is one of America's fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.