In a significant ruling that directly affects students attending private California colleges and universities, and that could indirectly influence courts in other states, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that students accused of sexual misconduct at a private school do not have the right to cross-examine their accusers or other witnesses in a live misconduct hearing. By denying students accused of misconduct this basic right, the court's ruling makes it all the more important that students accused of a Title IX violation by their California school – or any other kind of serious misconduct – have the services of an experienced student defense attorney throughout the entire disciplinary process. Contact the Lento Law Firm Student Defense Team at 888.535.3686 or use our contact form to set up a confidential consultation to learn how we can help you protect your rights.

The Allegations in the California Case

The California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion provided the factual background to its ruling. A female student at the University of Southern California filed a Title IX complaint against a male student in January 2017. The two, according to the court, had had an “ 'on and off' romantic relationship” that ended in 2016. The woman's complaint alleged that the male had called her in January 2017 for a ride from a party and that he was heavily intoxicated at the time. When she arrived with her dog to pick him up, the male physically attacked her after she refused to drop the dog's leash, pulling her hair, grabbing her throat, and pushing her head against a concrete wall. Her complaint also alleged that the male student had verbally abused the woman a number of times, and she also provided details of “prior instances of physical violence” committed by the male student.

The USC Code of Conduct

The USC, in effect in January 2017, prohibited students from committing “intimate partner violence.” This applied in situations where two people were currently or had in the past been in a “dating, romantic, intimate, or sexual relationship.” USC is a private, not a public university. Because it receives federal funding, however, it has an obligation to abide by the requirements of Title IX.

The Investigation and Hearing

USC's Title IX office assigned an investigator to the complaint. The Title IX investigator interviewed both of the students involved, as well as two eyewitnesses and 14 other witnesses. The investigator also reviewed surveillance video evidence. After completing the investigation, and in line with USC's policies, the two students each had the opportunity to participate in a hearing – but in separate hearings, one for the complaining party and one for the student accused of the misconduct. Each student could provide the Title IX coordinator with questions to ask the other student at that student's hearing, but at no point would the accuser and the accused attend the same hearing at the same time. At no point would the accused student have an opportunity to directly cross-examine either the woman who filed the complaint against him or any of the witnesses brought to testify against him.

Both students declined the opportunity to participate in separate hearings, and instead, each elected to provide written statements responding to the evidence. Notably, the woman who had filed the complaint recanted significant portions of her original accusations in her written statement.

After considering the evidence, including the woman's recanted statements, USC ruled that the male student had committed intimate partner violence, and it expelled him. A school appeals panel recommended that the expulsion be reduced to a two-year suspension and a 52-week “intimate partner violence program.” USC's vice president of student affairs rejected the panel's recommendation and expelled the male student.

The California Supreme Court's Ruling

The male student filed a petition asking that USC's expulsion be reversed because USC should have permitted him to directly cross-examine the woman who had filed the complaint as well as the other witnesses against him “in real-time at a live hearing.” (The petition also sought reversal because the Title IX investigator was also responsible for the disciplinary hearing, but that issue was not before the California Supreme Court.)

The Court discussed the common law doctrine of “fair procedure” and recent California legislation that it said gave schools “wide latitude” in how they conducted their disciplinary proceedings. It then ruled that the concept of “fair procedure” in the school disciplinary setting does not require private universities to “provide students with the opportunity to directly or indirectly cross-examine the accuser and other witnesses at a live hearing with the accused student in attendance.”

Why You Need the Lento Law Firm Student Defense Team if You're Accused of Serious Misconduct

As this case starkly illustrates, disciplinary procedures at colleges and universities can be far different – and much less fair – than what an accused could expect to experience in a court of law. Basic concepts of fairness, such as being able to cross-examine witnesses testifying against you, may be ignored, and schools may take other procedural shortcuts as well. You need an experienced advocate from the start – from the moment you learn that a serious misconduct allegation has been made against you, and the school has assigned someone to investigate it.

Whether it's a Title IX investigation, an allegation that you've committed plagiarism, that you've engaged in off-campus misconduct, or otherwise, you should not rely on your school to give you a fair ruling. The Lento Law Firm Student Defense Team has seen this happen time and time again, and our experienced attorneys will fight for your right to have your disciplinary matter resolved in a fair and impartial way.

If you've been accused of misconduct by your school, don't delay – call the Lento Law Firm Student Defense Team today at 888.535.3686 or set up a confidential consultation by using our online contact form. Your future is important. Let us help you protect it.