alleged sexual assault investigation of 4 on 1 by public saftey

[Warriorz]

Who said Boyle represented the students in the internal MU proceedings?  Someone commented that Boyle was working with them, but I assumed that was for the potential criminal investigation, not the internal MU investigation.  I could be wrong, but I don't want to read more into this than is actually out there.

"Defense attorney Gerry Boyle represented the four athletes at the disciplinary hearing. He did not return 12 News' calls for comment."

http://www.wisn.com/news/27345574/detail.html

[jficke13]

I would assume your assumption to be correct.  Now that it is a potential legal matter, an attorney would be involved.  Prior to that, not necessary

depends how serious the hearing is. If the MU disciplinary panel is really getting into the who, how, when, etc... and the kids don't know any better, they might be creating evidence that could come back to bite them in a real court.

[Tom Crean's Tanning Bed]

The question I have is, what are an institution's reponsibilities when it comes to contacting the actual police about accusations this severe?  Can they?  Should they?  Does it have to rise to a certain level before this occurs?

Here's MU's (at least publically published policy) on sexual assault cases. 

http://marquette.edu/publicsafety/SRG-Sexual-Assault.shtml

Marquette is committed to providing confidential, caring support and assistance to any student or employee who is the victim of an assault. Officers have been specially trained to help obtain medical assistance, counseling and related support for victims. Officers are available to inform victims of reporting options relating to Public Safety and the appropriate law enforcement agency. Informing Public Safety of an assault does not obligate the victim to pursue formal action through the university's student conduct process or criminal ­justice system.


All reports of sexual assault are kept confidential, unless otherwise required by law. Confidential and anonymous assistance and referrals also are available through Helping Abuse and Violence End Now, Campus Ministry, the Counseling Center, the Student Health Service, the Office of Student Development, other university offices and community support agencies. If necessary, your academic or Marquette work schedule and housing can be modified to accommodate counseling, court proceedings, security or other concerns.


If a police report is filed, officers will assist the victim with the reporting process. Members of the Victim/Witness Services Unit are available to provide escorts to all related appointments and court proceedings. If an assault suspect is a Marquette student, the victim also will have the option of pursuing the case through the university's student conduct system. Student victims of sexual assault will be informed about on-campus student conduct procedures and services provided for victims. The victim and suspect may be present during on-campus hearings, and each may have a support person with him or her. The victim will be informed of the results of the student conduct hearing unless the release of such information is prohibited by state or federal restrictions. Any student found responsible for sexually assaulting another student will be subject to all levels of university discipline, including suspension or expulsion.

[Litehouse]

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen anything that specifically mentioned that.

However, since that's the same story that used the ridiculous random student comment, it makes me question this journalist a little.

[jficke13]

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen anything that specifically mentioned that.

However, since that's the same story that used the ridiculous random student comment, it makes me question this journalist a little.

It was a copywriter for WISN12's tv station. Probably not a pulitzer in that intern's future.

[Golden Avalanche]

Who said Boyle represented the students in the internal MU proceedings?  Someone commented that Boyle was working with them, but I assumed that was for the potential criminal investigation, not the internal MU investigation.  I could be wrong, but I don't want to read more into this than is actually out there.

That would have been my initial thought but when I read the first few media releases last night and they mentioned that Boyle was there for the internal hearing that's when I posted that it told me all I needed to know about the situation.

GB ain't waddling into the Union for the hell of it on a cold Tuesday morning in November. That said, I don't think there's much to this.

[NavinRJohnson]

However, since that's the same story that used the ridiculous random student comment, it makes me question this journalist a little.

Those were the two items that jumped out at me as well.  Who gives a rat's behind what that idiot thinks, and how on earth is he qualified to conclude as a matter of fact that they are receiving preferential treatment (even though in general, not necessarily in criminal matters, they should receive preferential treatment)?

As far as Boyle goes, his presence does make me a bit twitchy. Then again, it could be an indicator that there is something to this, just as much as that there is not.

[JWags85]

As far as Boyle goes, his presence does make me a bit twitchy. Then again, it could be an indicator that there is something to this, just as much as that there is not.

As has been mentioned before, he is a friend of the program.  Maybe he was brought in to make sure, if the case had no merit, was handled appropriately.  How many times do things get out of control because the accused/their lawyers/etc... get spooked?  Might as well bring in a calm head, especially when its potentially testy or a PR nightmare. 

[NavinRJohnson]

As has been mentioned before, he is a friend of the program.  Maybe he was brought in to make sure, if the case had no merit, was handled appropriately.  How many times do things get out of control because the accused/their lawyers/etc... get spooked?  Might as well bring in a calm head, especially when its potentially testy or a PR nightmare. 

Correct. Not to mention potential for future lawsuits against MU, etc.

[MUMac]

Correct. Not to mention potential for future lawsuits against MU, etc.

I suppose the Duke Lax situation has changed how all programs view allegations.  Especially one that could mushroom into a messy legal issue.  Make sure that they have the best representation they can to protect theirs and the programs interets.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I suppose the Duke Lax situation has changed how all programs view allegations.  Especially one that could mushroom into a messy legal issue.  Make sure that they have the best representation they can to protect theirs and the programs interets.

Agree.

Smart thinking.

The timing doesn't bother me because the slower and quieter these types of things go, the better.

"Public" and "Fast" may be what people think they want, but it would increase the chance of errors exponentially.

[Ari Gold]

I've spoken to some sources in local media and I have been able to find out some information on this event.

In all honesty, this story seems like it has been blown way out of proportion because/therefore people are expecting the worst. Think disney version of Duke LaX

 Yes I know there are people on this board who have daughters and think that "boys will be boys" is a terrible way to put things, but remember we were all college guys once and we've all said some stupid things that we thought were funny at the time.

As for Boyle's presence- I thought MU kept him on retainer and would rep MU players regardless. A traffic ticket or off campus incident.. Boyle would still be involved.

rocky's edit - judicial removal of "rumors" from "media sources".

[Benny B]

Like usual... what we know so far makes absolutely no sense.  So here's my nickel:

1) If you're the victim of a crime, and you want to see the perpetrator brought to justice, why wait nearly 5 months?  I can understand in some assault cases that a victim may wish to wait a few days, maybe weeks to digest everything... possibly even a month or so in some circumstances.  IMO and generally speaking, someone who waits this long to file a police report has no interest in "criminal" justice; his/her interest is "civil" justice (a lawsuit).  Of course, this is an oversimplification, the facts of the case may certainly warrant the delay in going to police... quite unlikely, though, given what's known thus far.

2) Is Gerry Boyle really appropriate???  IMO -- You only retain guys like Gerry Boyle, Johnnie Cochran, the Ambiguously Genson Duo, etc. when you know you're guilty and your only hope is the "song and dance" routine.  Even if the guy is working pro-bono for MU, there are plenty of other competent law grads and friends-of-MU who would be not only happy to take the case for the accused but also just as capable of ensuring it's handled properly.

3) What exactly is 'sexual harassment' other than one of the most convoluted "laws" we have?  While it's not a criminal matter, it can get you sued to holy hell, but you're not going to jail for making a dirty comment.  Further, should a drunk man staring at a woman's cleavage when she's dressed up as Elvira for Halloween really constitute harassment?  Apparently so, since our society allows you to ruin someone's life for this at your own discretion.  IMO - 10% of harassment is truly harassment, 10% is not, and 80% is gray area.

4) Further, what responsibility is there for a victim, if any?  Nobody ever deserves to be harassed, assaulted, etc., but there's a certain truth no one likes to admit about individuals who knowingly put themselves in bad situations and then want to play the "I'm-a-completely-100%-innocent-victim-card" when the "not-expected-but-not-necessarily-unexpected" happens.  Here's a thought... if you don't want trouble, don't hire a stripper for your private, unmonitored LAX buddy party.  While I would never use this excuse to exonerate a victim, there certainly needs to be a greater emphasis on personal responsibility in society.

5) Who actually took this story public?  The article said "Milwaukee Police announced..."  Did a reporter ask a random question at a police presser?  Was it leaked to the media?  Has it truly been the "talk" on campus?  If it were the unilateral decision of MPD to go public prior to the conclusion of the criminal investigation, I would be very disturbed.  Likewise, I would also be very disturbed if this was a concerted effort by the plaintiff's attorney to try the case in the media before suit is even filed (mission accomplished).  (Edited... not the media... more like a few rogue Scoopers and bad journalists)

6) If the accused are as "high-profile" as those before me have claimed, why wasn't MU or the AD ready with a prepared statement the second it hit?

7) Why hasn't the J-S updated this story since yesterday's blog entry that hit shortly after 3pm?  If there's something here, you think the media would be all over it.

Too many questions, not enough answers.  There's a 50% chance this story is complete BS and an even likelier chance that for every claim of sexual assault, another actual sexual assault will never be reported.

[GGGG]

I just don't think there are much "legs" to this story right now.  MU did a good job to quash any initial controversy over suggested preferential treatment.  The local media is basically pretty tame, so they aren't going to push any harder.  There is nothing on any national site.

We'll just see how the process plays out, but I seriously doubt it is going to lead to any charges whatsoever.  I don't see how it can because there will be zero physical evidence.  Five months is a long time.

[Warriorz]

As has been mentioned before, he is a friend of the program.  Maybe he was brought in to make sure, if the case had no merit, was handled appropriately.  How many times do things get out of control because the accused/their lawyers/etc... get spooked?  Might as well bring in a calm head, especially when its potentially testy or a PR nightmare. 

As for Boyle's presence- I thought MU kept him on retainer and would rep MU players regardless. A traffic ticket or off campus incident.. Boyle would still be involved.

There seems to be some confusion here - a cozy relationship between Atty. Boyle and the athletic department does not make this better.  See NCAA bylaw 16.02.3 Extra Benefit:

"An extra benefit is any special arrangement by an institutional employee or a representative of the institution's athletics interests to provide a student-athlete or the  student-athlete's relative or friend a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. Receipt of a benefit by student-athletes or their relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution's students or their relatives or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., foreign students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability." 

Note that a booster qualifies as a "representative of the institution's athletics interests." There are other explicit exceptions, but I have never heard of one for legal representation. I have little doubt that Atty. Boyle is well aware of the bylaws.  So either the student athletes somehow came up with Atty. Boyle's normal private retainer, Atty. Boyle believes there is some exception to the above bylaw (e.g., he represents all minority students pro bono), or it was thought that the victim would not make the allegations public (thus keeping the violation a secret).  If it was the latter, be prepared for the sh*t to really hit the fan. 

[GGGG]

If Boyle sat with the players during the hearing, and the hearing lasted 30 min., and he charged them $150, that means each would have to come up with $37.50.  I'm sure they could do that.

[Coleman]

If Boyle sat with the players during the hearing, and the hearing lasted 30 min., and he charged them $150, that means each would have to come up with $37.50.  I'm sure they could do that.

Haha, you don't know how lawyers work. I'm sure were several hours of prep time preparing for the hearing 

[Warriorz]

If Boyle sat with the players during the hearing, and the hearing lasted 30 min., and he charged them $150, that means each would have to come up with $37.50.  I'm sure they could do that.

That's one way to spin it. However, I'm betting his normal minimum retainer is in the thousands. The other question is, even if the players came in to his office because they knew him, money in hand, why not refer it to another attorney that isn't a booster? If there was really no merit to the case, why not just give it to competent colleague and avoid the issue (especially if the going rate for such a hearing is pocket change to Atty. Boyle)?  I suspect at some level, there was the thinking that no one would find out. Sorry guys, this stinks...

[Coleman]

I've spoken to some sources in local media and I have been able to find out some information on this event.

In all honesty, this story seems like it has been blown way out of proportion because/therefore people are expecting the worst. Think disney version of Duke LaX

 Yes I know there are people on this board who have daughters and think that "boys will be boys" is a terrible way to put things, but remember we were all college guys once and we've all said some stupid things that we thought were funny at the time.

As for Boyle's presence- I thought MU kept him on retainer and would rep MU players regardless. A traffic ticket or off campus incident.. Boyle would still be involved.

rocky's edit - judicial removal of "rumors" from "media sources".

So, based on your sources, is this just all about something that was "said"? Because that would be a huuuuge relief.

I agree, we've all said stupid things, especially at a party and/or while drunk.

[MUMac]

That's one way to spin it. However, I'm betting his normal minimum retainer is in the thousands. The other question is, even if the players came in to his office because they knew him, money in hand, why not refer it to another attorney that isn't a booster? If there was really no merit to the case, why not just give it to competent colleague and avoid the issue (especially if the going rate for such a hearing is pocket change to Atty. Boyle)?  I suspect at some level, there was the thinking that no one would find out. Sorry guys, this stinks...

Quite an assumption without any basis of fact. 

[Coleman]

There seems to be some confusion here - a cozy relationship between Atty. Boyle and the athletic department does not make this better.  See NCAA bylaw 16.02.3 Extra Benefit:

"An extra benefit is any special arrangement by an institutional employee or a representative of the institution's athletics interests to provide a student-athlete or the  student-athlete's relative or friend a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. Receipt of a benefit by student-athletes or their relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution's students or their relatives or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., foreign students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability."  

Note that a booster qualifies as a "representative of the institution's athletics interests." There are other explicit exceptions, but I have never heard of one for legal representation. I have little doubt that Atty. Boyle is well aware of the bylaws.  So either the student athletes somehow came up with Atty. Boyle's normal private retainer, Atty. Boyle believes there is some exception to the above bylaw (e.g., he represents all minority students pro bono), or it was thought that the victim would not make the allegations public (thus keeping the violation a secret).  If it was the latter, be prepared for the sh*t to really hit the fan.  

I'm pretty sure the athletic department is able to provide legal representation for their athletes without it being a violation (I'm not positive, but its a hunch).

[Coleman]

That's one way to spin it. However, I'm betting his normal minimum retainer is in the thousands. The other question is, even if the players came in to his office because they knew him, money in hand, why not refer it to another attorney that isn't a booster? If there was really no merit to the case, why not just give it to competent colleague and avoid the issue (especially if the going rate for such a hearing is pocket change to Atty. Boyle)?  I suspect at some level, there was the thinking that no one would find out. Sorry guys, this stinks...

And its a little odd for someone with no previous posts to come on here and tell us how much this stinks...Do you have something legitimate to add or are you just stirring the pot?

[Warriorz]

Indeed I may stand corrected here.  I've found a secondary source that suggest that "Actual and necessary expenses to attend proceedings conducted by the institution, its athletics conference or the NCAA that relate to the student-athlete's eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletics or legal proceedings that result from the student-athlete's involvement in athletics practice or competitive events. The cost of legal representation in such proceedings also may be provided by the institution (or a representative of its athletics interests)."  Certainly one could argue this relates to eligibility.  I'm not pretending to have any "inside" sources. I'm just trying to figure out if there's a violation here. 

[MerrittsMustache]

Note that a booster qualifies as a "representative of the institution's athletics interests." There are other explicit exceptions, but I have never heard of one for legal representation. I have little doubt that Atty. Boyle is well aware of the bylaws.  So either the student athletes somehow came up with Atty. Boyle's normal private retainer, Atty. Boyle believes there is some exception to the above bylaw (e.g., he represents all minority students pro bono), or it was thought that the victim would not make the allegations public (thus keeping the violation a secret).  If it was the latter, be prepared for the sh*t to really hit the fan. 

Boyle wasn't giving legal advice by slipping anonymous notes to the players or disguising his voice while calling from a pay phone. He was representing them at a university hearing. Do you really think that he would appear as their counsel in front of a university organization if it was an NCAA violation to do so?

[MUBurrow]

Quite an assumption without any basis of fact. 

what's the assumption? that from a PR standpoint it looks bad to have athletes represented at an in house MU investigation by the area's most prominent and wealthy defense attorney who also is an MU athletics booster? thats not assumption. thats just how it looks to every non-MU human being on the planet at first glance.