Not Guilty ≠ Innocent
Saifullah Khan was a student at Yale University. On January 4, 2019 he was expelled following a determination by the University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct (UWC) that he had violated the university's policies in that area.
The timeline for Mr. Khan's expulsion begins on Halloween night of 2015. He was accused of sexually assaulting a fellow student at Yale. The criminal case against him ended in March of 2018 when he was found not guilty by a jury.
Victim advocacy groups were critical of the questions posed by Mr. Khan's attorney, Norm Pattis. He asked why she'd chosen to wear a sequined cat costume rather than a flowing "Cinderella" type gown. Whether or not the victim had previously flirted with Khan. How much she had had to drink.
Jurors interviewed after the conclusion of the trial said that those weren't the things that had led to the verdict. They cited inconsistencies in the victim's account of what transpired. One had to do with the victim's testimony that Khan had been forced to hold her up because she was dragging one of her legs as she walked. Surveillance video viewed by the jury didn't show that, jurors claimed.
On my way home from work yesterday I listened to Mr. Pattis being interviewed. He kept harping on the fact that it was wrong for a man who was "cleared" in the criminal court system to be expelled without proper due process by Yale.
There are various burdens of proof in the legal system. Mr. Pattis wrote about this himself in a blog about the expulsion of Mr. Khan. To be found guilty in a criminal trial requires that the allegations be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not beyond any doubt. In a civil trial, there is a lower bar known as "by a preponderance of the evidence." That is how O.J. Simpson was acquitted in criminal court of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but found responsible in the wrongful death civil trial held later. Mr. Pattis described the hearing held by the UWC as "fatally flawed" because his client wasn't afforded the same things in that hearing that he had at the criminal trial.
* * *
The problem with the contentions of Mr. Pattis begins with a critical fact. The finding by the jury that Mr. Khan wasn't guilty of the charges does not make him "innocent." It merely means that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." The rights Mr. Pattis says his client was denied in the UWC hearing aren't guaranteed by the Constitution as they were in that courtroom, including the presumption of innocence. Whether or not that hearing process should provide the accused the rights to confront and cross-examine their accuser is a good subject for debate, but not relevant to the finding of the UWC. I am bothered by the fact that the UWC refused to allow Pattis to be nothing more than a silent witness to the hearing, and that there was no record of the proceedings themselves.
That doesn't mean Yale can do whatever it wants. It must comply with federal and state laws regarding discrimination. Mr. Khan will seek redress in the federal court system.
Did the 75,000 signatures gathered on a petition that urged Yale to "ban the rapist" influence the UWC decision? Quite probably. Does that matter?
The timeline for Mr. Khan's expulsion begins on Halloween night of 2015. He was accused of sexually assaulting a fellow student at Yale. The criminal case against him ended in March of 2018 when he was found not guilty by a jury.
Victim advocacy groups were critical of the questions posed by Mr. Khan's attorney, Norm Pattis. He asked why she'd chosen to wear a sequined cat costume rather than a flowing "Cinderella" type gown. Whether or not the victim had previously flirted with Khan. How much she had had to drink.
Jurors interviewed after the conclusion of the trial said that those weren't the things that had led to the verdict. They cited inconsistencies in the victim's account of what transpired. One had to do with the victim's testimony that Khan had been forced to hold her up because she was dragging one of her legs as she walked. Surveillance video viewed by the jury didn't show that, jurors claimed.
On my way home from work yesterday I listened to Mr. Pattis being interviewed. He kept harping on the fact that it was wrong for a man who was "cleared" in the criminal court system to be expelled without proper due process by Yale.
There are various burdens of proof in the legal system. Mr. Pattis wrote about this himself in a blog about the expulsion of Mr. Khan. To be found guilty in a criminal trial requires that the allegations be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not beyond any doubt. In a civil trial, there is a lower bar known as "by a preponderance of the evidence." That is how O.J. Simpson was acquitted in criminal court of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but found responsible in the wrongful death civil trial held later. Mr. Pattis described the hearing held by the UWC as "fatally flawed" because his client wasn't afforded the same things in that hearing that he had at the criminal trial.
* * *
The problem with the contentions of Mr. Pattis begins with a critical fact. The finding by the jury that Mr. Khan wasn't guilty of the charges does not make him "innocent." It merely means that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." The rights Mr. Pattis says his client was denied in the UWC hearing aren't guaranteed by the Constitution as they were in that courtroom, including the presumption of innocence. Whether or not that hearing process should provide the accused the rights to confront and cross-examine their accuser is a good subject for debate, but not relevant to the finding of the UWC. I am bothered by the fact that the UWC refused to allow Pattis to be nothing more than a silent witness to the hearing, and that there was no record of the proceedings themselves.
That doesn't mean Yale can do whatever it wants. It must comply with federal and state laws regarding discrimination. Mr. Khan will seek redress in the federal court system.
Did the 75,000 signatures gathered on a petition that urged Yale to "ban the rapist" influence the UWC decision? Quite probably. Does that matter?
posted by me at 5:00 AM
<< Home