Misplaced Pages

2007 De Anza College rape investigation: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:05, 12 June 2016 edit211.30.17.74 (talk) →Civil case: clarify when the attorneys criticised Persky← Previous edit Revision as of 09:19, 12 June 2016 edit undo211.30.17.74 (talk) →Civil caseNext edit →
Line 23: Line 23:
The victim then proceeded to take the case to civil court in 2011, seeking monetary compensation from her attackers. Defendants Knopf and Chadwick claimed that the sex was consensual. Six other men were also listed in the lawsuit when the trial began in late February, but subsequently settled with the plaintiff or had the lawsuit against them dismissed. On April 7, 2011, the jury in the civil case found Knopf and Chadwick to be not liable for the charges against them so no damages were awarded.<ref>{{cite news|title=No defendants found liable in De Anza rape trial, no damages awarded|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_17793153|accessdate=June 11, 2016|newspaper=Silicon Valley Mercury News|date=April 7, 2011}}</ref> The victim then proceeded to take the case to civil court in 2011, seeking monetary compensation from her attackers. Defendants Knopf and Chadwick claimed that the sex was consensual. Six other men were also listed in the lawsuit when the trial began in late February, but subsequently settled with the plaintiff or had the lawsuit against them dismissed. On April 7, 2011, the jury in the civil case found Knopf and Chadwick to be not liable for the charges against them so no damages were awarded.<ref>{{cite news|title=No defendants found liable in De Anza rape trial, no damages awarded|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_17793153|accessdate=June 11, 2016|newspaper=Silicon Valley Mercury News|date=April 7, 2011}}</ref>


After Persky's sentencing of ] in 2016, Persky was criticized by the plaintiff's attorneys for allowing suggestive photos of the unidentified victim, taken at a party a year after the gang rape, into evidence, and {{citation needed span|preventing other victims from testifying}}.<ref>{{cite news|title=De Anza civil case blog Feb. 25: Woman pressing rape allegations against former baseball players|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17482693|accessdate=June 6, 2016|newspaper=The Mercury News|date=June 6, 2016}}</ref><ref name=WaltersWongLevin/> Attorneys for "Jane Doe" said the photographs were not the only evidence that Persky unfairly permitted. Four of the baseball players had invoked ] rights not to self-incriminate during the discovery phase of the litigation. According to a lawyer for Doe, that was a critical juncture: it prevented the victim's team from obtaining evidence that could have helped them pursue their case. The original judge in the case ruled in 2010 that the defendants could refuse to testify, but that would also mean that they would be prohibited from subsequently testifying in the case. That ruling was, however, overturned by Persky after he took over the trial in 2011, a move that Doe's attorneys say undermined her case.<ref name=WaltersWongLevin/> After Judge ]'s sentencing of ] in 2016, Persky was criticized by the plaintiff's attorneys for allowing suggestive photos of the unidentified victim, taken at a party a year after the gang rape, into evidence, and {{citation needed span|preventing other victims from testifying}}.<ref>{{cite news|title=De Anza civil case blog Feb. 25: Woman pressing rape allegations against former baseball players|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17482693|accessdate=June 6, 2016|newspaper=The Mercury News|date=June 6, 2016}}</ref><ref name=WaltersWongLevin/> Attorneys for "Jane Doe" said the photographs were not the only evidence that Persky unfairly permitted. Four of the baseball players had invoked ] rights not to self-incriminate during the discovery phase of the litigation. According to a lawyer for Doe, that was a critical juncture: it prevented the victim's team from obtaining evidence that could have helped them pursue their case. The original judge in the case ruled in 2010 that the defendants could refuse to testify, but that would also mean that they would be prohibited from subsequently testifying in the case. That ruling was, however, overturned by Persky after he took over the trial in 2011, a move that Doe's attorneys say undermined her case.<ref name=WaltersWongLevin/>


==References== ==References==

Revision as of 09:19, 12 June 2016

An editor has nominated this article for deletion.
You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion, which will decide whether or not to retain it.Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed. For more information, see the guide to deletion.
Find sources: "2007 De Anza College rape investigation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR%5B%5BWikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2F2007+De+Anza+rape+investigation%5D%5DAFD

The 2007 De Anza rape investigation was a police inquiry into allegations of sexual assault of a minor arising from an off-campus party on March 4, 2007. The investigation focused on eight members of the 2007 De Anza College baseball team. The allegations were investigated by the Santa Clara County, California Sheriff's Department, and reviewed by Santa Clara County District Attorney Dolores Carr. June 4, 2007, Carr stated that no charges would be filed. This decision was questioned by many, and the Office of the California Attorney General Jerry Brown was invited by the prosecutor to perform an independent investigation of the available evidence. May 2, 2008, the Attorney General's office determined that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone present with a crime.

Allegations of assault

On March 4, 2007, three members of the De Anza College woman's soccer team alleged that, while attending a party off-campus at the home of a member of the college baseball team, heard a commotion, and knelt to look through an un-screened French door pane. They witnessed an intoxicated 17-year-old girl being sexually assaulted by two or more people. They further stated that a number of other people were in the same room, observing the incident and cheering. They were told go away and the door was blocked. The women stated that they broke into the room, removed the girl, and took her to the hospital. It was found she was covered with someone else's vomit. The women stated that they intervened, removed the girl, and took her to the hospital.

Investigation

The members of the soccer team reported the incident, and the Santa Clara Sheriff's Department investigated. No arrests were made, even after a second woman came forward to say that she too had been sexually assaulted by De Anza college baseball players. The results of the investigation were turned over to the Office of the Santa Clara County District Attorney. The sheriffs did not investigate the scene until nearly 23 hours after the woman was brought to hospital. The district attorney's office conducted additional investigations, and presented its evidence to a grand jury. On June 4, 2007, District Attorney Dolores Carr announced that she would not charge anyone involved in the alleged incident with a crime. Carr later explained that to reveal the details of the case that led her to this decision would have a chilling effect on other rape claims.

Santa Clara Sheriff Laurie Smith stated that she believed a sexual assault did occur. D.A. Carr submitted the case to the Office of the State Attorney General for review.

Public reaction and aftermath

The decision not to prosecute was questioned widely. There was negative reaction in the form of public protests, and adverse comments by the county sheriff, by a number of newspaper columnists, and editorial page writers. Carr invited Jerry Brown, then the California Attorney General, to conduct an independent assessment of the evidence. Brown accepted, and his office commenced an investigation, later releasing its results. It determined there was evidence that a crime had occurred, but there was also insufficient evidence to identify those responsible. The investigation noted the physical descriptions of the attackers varied so widely that they could not be accurately identified. The victim was characterized as having no memory of the incident after her arrival at the party. The report concluded that these factors made proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as required for a criminal trial, impossible. The report further indicated that widespread intoxication among the party's attendees hampered the accuracy and reliability of their memories of the event. As a result, Carr's office announced that no charges would be filed, and the criminal case was closed.

ABC News 20/20 episode

ABC News 20/20 episode aired on June 5, 2009 on the 2007 De Anza case. During the episode April Groelle, Lauren Chief Elk and Lauren Bryeans allege that they witnessed a rape of a teenager by members of baseball team and stated: If three witnesses aren't enough, 'why is rape even a crime?' Meanwhile, Sheriff Laurie Smith called the case 'frustrating', saying it was possible the baseball players were sticking to a code of silence.

Civil case

The victim then proceeded to take the case to civil court in 2011, seeking monetary compensation from her attackers. Defendants Knopf and Chadwick claimed that the sex was consensual. Six other men were also listed in the lawsuit when the trial began in late February, but subsequently settled with the plaintiff or had the lawsuit against them dismissed. On April 7, 2011, the jury in the civil case found Knopf and Chadwick to be not liable for the charges against them so no damages were awarded.

After Judge Aaron Persky's sentencing of Brock Turner in 2016, Persky was criticized by the plaintiff's attorneys for allowing suggestive photos of the unidentified victim, taken at a party a year after the gang rape, into evidence, and preventing other victims from testifying. Attorneys for "Jane Doe" said the photographs were not the only evidence that Persky unfairly permitted. Four of the baseball players had invoked Fifth Amendment rights not to self-incriminate during the discovery phase of the litigation. According to a lawyer for Doe, that was a critical juncture: it prevented the victim's team from obtaining evidence that could have helped them pursue their case. The original judge in the case ruled in 2010 that the defendants could refuse to testify, but that would also mean that they would be prohibited from subsequently testifying in the case. That ruling was, however, overturned by Persky after he took over the trial in 2011, a move that Doe's attorneys say undermined her case.

References

  1. Roberts, Deborah; Redmond, Lynn; Tomaselli, Lisa (June 4, 2009). "Witnesses: We Broke Up Gang Rape of Girl, 17". ABC News. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  2. Witnesses to Alleged De Anza Rape Speak Out http://www.ktvu.com/news/13370961/detail.html
  3. ^ Walters, Joanna; Wong, Julia Carrie; Levin, Sam (June 9, 2016). "Stanford judge allowed revealing photos of alleged gang-rape victim in prior case". The Guardian. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  4. "Investigators Plan to Present Evidence". San Francisco Gate. March 23, 2007. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  5. http://www.eastbaytimes.com/news/ci_15161100
  6. ^ Coté, John (June 6, 2007). "SANTA CLARA COUNTY / D.A. won't file in case involving De Anza athletes / Sex assault decision stuns investigators in Sheriff's Department". The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  7. http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6004819
  8. Nevius, C.W. (June 6, 2007). "State's Involvement Could Give Fresh Start to De Anza case". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  9. Webby, Sean (June 6, 2007). "AG to Review De Anza Case". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  10. Griffy, Leslie (March 3, 2008). "De Anza rape case in Limbo, Year Later". The Oakland Tribune. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
  11. Griffy, Leslie (May 25, 2007). "De Anza sex case decision protested". Silicon Valley Mercury News. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  12. "Protesters Demand Justice In Alleged De Anza Rape". KRXI. Archived from the original on September 27, 2011. Retrieved June 11, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  13. Nevius, C.W. (June 2, 2007). "Alleged rape victim wants day in court -- D.A. should give it". San Francisco Gate. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  14. Herhold, Scott (May 22, 2007). "Herhold: Questions persist in De Anza case, and we deserve answers". Silicon Valley. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  15. "De Anza rape -- where's justice?". San Francisco Gate. June 5, 2007. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  16. "SANTA CLARA COUNTY / Experts assess Brown's move in De Anza case". The San Francisco Chronicle. June 7, 2007. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  17. ^ Coté, John (May 3, 2008). "State: Evidence lacking in De Anza rape case". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  18. Deborah Roberts. "Alleged Gang Rape Ends With No Criminal Charges but Civil Suit Pending". ABC News 20/20. Retrieved November 7, 2009.
  19. "No defendants found liable in De Anza rape trial, no damages awarded". Silicon Valley Mercury News. April 7, 2011. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  20. "De Anza civil case blog Feb. 25: Woman pressing rape allegations against former baseball players". The Mercury News. June 6, 2016. Retrieved June 6, 2016.
Categories: