Blog

Do I Have a Right to Cross-Examine My Accuser in a Title IX Case or Not?

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Dec 31, 2019 | 0 Comments

Some students who have been accused of sexual misconduct on campus find that there are conflicting messages as to whether they have a right to cross-examine their accuser or not. That confusion is understandable in Title IX cases because the issue is still extremely unsettled.

National Title IX advisor and defense attorney Joseph D. Lento explains.

Title IX Regulations are Silent on the Right to Cross-Examine an Accuser

Because the Title IX statute is short, vague, and completely devoid of the details, it is the regulations promulgated by the Department of Education that lay the groundwork for how misconduct claims are investigated and heard.

Even those regulations, though, do not currently say anything about when or whether an accused student has a right to cross-examine their accuser. The amendments to those regulations want to change that, but they have not been finalized, yet.

Courts Have Split Over Whether Cross-Examination is Required for Due Process

Courts that have heard lawsuits over whether accused students have a right to cross-examine their accusers have had to square the Title IX regulations with the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process whenever someone could be deprived of their life, liberty, or property.

Only a few of these cases have made it to the appellate level, though.

The first was Doe v. Baum, which was decided in September 2018. In that case, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, said that accused students had a right to cross-examine their accusers when they were accused of sexual misconduct. That right, however, only applied “when the case hinged on a question of credibility.”

That case was followed by Haidak v. University of Massachusetts-Amherst, which was decided by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2019. The 1st Circuit controls the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. In Haidak, the court decided that accused students didn't always have a right to cross-examine their accusers, carving out an exception for when the school's fact-finder or hearing panel meaningfully questioned each side.

The 7th Circuit, which covers Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, seemed to follow Haidak in the case Doe v. Columbia College Chicago by suggesting that due process was satisfied when an accused student could provide the hearing board with a line of questioning for the accuser.

No Resolution, Yet

Unfortunately, this means there is a circuit court split over whether accused students have a right to cross-examine their accuser. In Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, they do. In Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, they do not. In the remaining 39 states, it's unclear.

Until the Supreme Court of the United States takes a case on the issue, or until the Department of Education publishes a regulation that breaks its silence on cross-examination, the question remains unsettled.

Joseph D. Lento: Title IX Defense for Accused Students

Joseph D. Lento is a Title IX defense lawyer. Contact him online or call his law office at (888) 535-3686 if you have been accused of sexual misconduct on campus.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Joseph D. Lento has more than a decade of experience passionately fighting for the futures of his clients. Mr. Lento represents students and others in disciplinary cases and other proceedings at universities and colleges across the United States while concurrently fighting in criminal courtrooms in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, and New Jersey. Mr. Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand universities and colleges across the United States. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, and is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!

footer-2.jpg

If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact our offices today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations – the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster, Lehigh, and Northampton County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.

Menu