2022-23 NCAA Men's Basketball Thread

[Pakuni]

I'm guessing with Texas' booster capabilities, his fiancee will have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of reasons to not press charges.

It's not her choice. She can refuse to cooperate, which likely will influence the decision, but it's not her call.

[rocky_warrior]

I'm guessing with Texas' booster capabilities, his fiancee will have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of reasons to not press charges.

I mean - if they intend to stay engaged - there's literally millions on the line if he were to lose his job.  That may be enough of a reason.

[Scoop Snoop]

Not necessarily true.
There will be statements to police, officer testimony, possible occurrence witnesses and potential physical evidence, such as photos of injuries.
We really don't know yet. But it's not out of the ordinary for a DV case to be prosecuted without a willing complainant.

Makes sense. Let's hope lawdog gives us his take on this.

[rgoode57]

Even though it can be technically prosecuted without a formal complainant, my bet is that no such prosecution ever happens.

UT and dozens of other universities will, in similar circumstances, go to great lengths to protect players, coaches, the public image, etc.  This is the coach boosters shelled out a lot of money to get just two years ago, and, as far as basketball is concerned, he has delivered for them. There is no way they are going to allow something like this to derail a possible national championship.
If he wasn't winning, they would use this as an excuse to terminate him, but he is winning - a lot - and that is worth something.

I hate that it is this way, but I am also a realist.

[WhiteTrash]

Even though it can be technically prosecuted without a formal complainant, my bet is that no such prosecution ever happens.

UT and dozens of other universities will, in similar circumstances, go to great lengths to protect players, coaches, the public image, etc.  This is the coach boosters shelled out a lot of money to get just two years ago, and, as far as basketball is concerned, he has delivered for them. There is no way they are going to allow something like this to derail a possible national championship.
If he wasn't winning, they would use this as an excuse to terminate him, but he is winning - a lot - and that is worth something.

I hate that it is this way, but I am also a realist.

I agree with this, except 'protecting the public image'. Depending on the facts, keeping him could be a blow to the image. Schools like AZ, KU, Louisville, etc. don't care about public image so maybe UT keeps him.

[Pakuni]

Even though it can be technically prosecuted without a formal complainant, my bet is that no such prosecution ever happens.

UT and dozens of other universities will, in similar circumstances, go to great lengths to protect players, coaches, the public image, etc.  This is the coach boosters shelled out a lot of money to get just two years ago, and, as far as basketball is concerned, he has delivered for them. There is no way they are going to allow something like this to derail a possible national championship.
If he wasn't winning, they would use this as an excuse to terminate him, but he is winning - a lot - and that is worth something.

I hate that it is this way, but I am also a realist.

I may be totally wrong here, but I wonder if Beard's status actually works against him here. Prosecuting without a complaining witness is hard, and if this were some under-the-radar case involving a local nobody, the state may be happy to let it go away quietly. 
But there's going to be national attention on this case, and I suspect the last thing an elected prosecutor wants is to appear he's giving a break to a domestic abuser because the person has fame and status. That may play with the UT basketball crowd, but not with women (who actually vote). The prosecutor may be better off trying the case and losing, and claiming to have fought the good fight, rather than just dropping the case.
But again, this is all just supposition. We need to know more about the evidence before making any informed guesses.

[connie]

I may be totally wrong here, but I wonder if Beard's status actually works against him here. Prosecuting without a complaining witness is hard, and if this were some under-the-radar case involving a local nobody, the state may be happy to let it go away quietly. 
But there's going to be national attention on this case, and I suspect the last thing an elected prosecutor wants is to appear he's giving a break to a domestic abuser because the person has fame and status. That may play with the UT basketball crowd, but not with women (who actually vote). The prosecutor may be better off trying the case and losing, and claiming to have fought the good fight, rather than just dropping the case.
But again, this is all just supposition. We need to know more about the evidence before making any informed guesses.

And remember that while this is Texas, it is also Austin, and that makes the need for some type of prosecution more likely. I think the degree of bruising is ultimately going to be the deciding factor.  If pictures of some well defined finger marks around the neck show up I think it unlikely Beard stays.

[The Sultan]

Regardless of whether or not they prosecute the case, his job status will be determined by any evidence that is made public - legally or illegally. Again, it would be a PR nightmare if a bad 911 call or pictures of a bruised neck are made public.

[rgoode57]

Perhaps more than one check has to be written to more than one person.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Not necessarily true.
There will be statements to police, officer testimony, possible occurrence witnesses and potential physical evidence, such as photos of injuries.
We really don't know yet. But it's not out of the ordinary for a DV case to be prosecuted without a willing complainant.

It is very much of out the ordinary. But you are correct that it does happen in rare cases.

[MuggsyB]

It's not her choice. She can refuse to cooperate, which likely will influence the decision, but it's not her call.

It's not her call to ultimately press charges? 

[Dr. Blackheart]

It is very much of out the ordinary. But you are correct that it does happen in rare cases.

What are the Title IX implications for a school employed coach and NCAA member organization to ignore this? 

[pbiflyer]

Perhaps more than one check has to be written to more than one person.

I was certainly traumatized by the whole incident. Checks may be made out to pbiflyer or cash, I am good with either.

[Pakuni]

It is very much of out the ordinary. But you are correct that it does happen in rare cases.

It's not. I've sat through multiple DV trials in which the victim didn't cooperate. If happens often enough that there's even a name for it - evidence-based prosecution.

I haven't found any great data on this, but according to this study out of California (see Page 14) ...

"Although victim cooperation is important, it is not the only—or even the greatest, according to the ORs—consideration. In nearly 10% of  cases in which there was no prosecution, the victim agreed to
prosecute on follow-up. Additionally, in 70% of cases where prosecution occurred,
the victim refused to assist with prosecution at follow-up"


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234036293_Evidence-Based_Prosecution_of_Intimate_Partner_Violence_in_the_Post-Crawford_Era_A_Single-City_Study_of_the_Factors_Leading_to_Prosecution

[Pakuni]

It's not her call to ultimately press charges?

No. It's never the victim's call. A victim's wishes can influence the decision, but citizens don't decide who is and isn't charged.

[bilsu]

It's not her call to ultimately press charges?

I think the big question is whether she has any bruising on her neck. Bruises around her neck will be big trouble for Beard. No bruising and it is he said she said, and I could see it being dropped.

[connie]

What are the Title IX implications for a school employed coach and NCAA member organization to ignore this?

I think this is really more a political than a legal question.  I would guess given the current relations between Texas (the state) and D.C. that there are any number of justifications that can be found (and some would even be legitimate, if strained) for the DOJ to write a letter asking serious questions and promising a thorough investigation of every[u][/u] UT athletic program.

[connie]

I haven't found any great data on this, but according to this study out of California (see Page 14) ...

"Although victim cooperation is important, it is not the only—or even the greatest, according to the ORs—consideration. In nearly 10% of  cases in which there was no prosecution, the victim agreed to
prosecute on follow-up. Additionally, in 70% of cases where prosecution occurred,
the victim refused to assist with prosecution at follow-up"


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234036293_Evidence-Based_Prosecution_of_Intimate_Partner_Violence_in_the_Post-Crawford_Era_A_Single-City_Study_of_the_Factors_Leading_to_Prosecution

A sad statistic to be sure

[MuggsyB]

No. It's never the victim's call. A victim's wishes can influence the decision, but citizens don't decide who is and isn't charged.

Okay but if the victim isn't willing to testify would the prosecutor press charges anyway?

[Pakuni]

Okay but if the victim isn't willing to testify would the prosecutor press charges anyway?

Depends on the evidence. Were there visible injuries photographed by police? Was there an eyewitness? A 911 recording? Did the victim make statements at the scene that could be introduced at trial via a hearsay exception?
We'll have to wait and see what comes out.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It's not. I've sat through multiple DV trials in which the victim didn't cooperate. If happens often enough that there's even a name for it - evidence-based prosecution.

I haven't found any great data on this, but according to this study out of California ...

"Although victim cooperation is important, it is not the only—or even the greatest, according to the ORs—consideration. In nearly 10% of  cases in which there was no prosecution, the victim agreed to
prosecute on follow-up. Additionally, in 70% of cases where prosecution occurred,
the victim refused to assist with prosecution at follow-up"


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234036293_Evidence-Based_Prosecution_of_Intimate_Partner_Violence_in_the_Post-Crawford_Era_A_Single-City_Study_of_the_Factors_Leading_to_Prosecution

Pakuni, I do this for a living. I've served on an executive board for anti-DV coalition, and have been an advocate who worked directly with DV victims, meeting them at hospitals and staying with them through trial (if it made it that far). I may know a thing or two here. It is outside of the ordinary. It happens but it is rare.

Your over decade old study of DV cases from a single city in California doesn't support your assertion. If you look at the numbers they gathered, 10.2% of DV arrests were prosecuted without a willing complainant which would fall in the rare and out of the ordinary category.

[lawdog77]

Okay but if the victim isn't willing to testify would the prosecutor press charges anyway?

Not my area, Yes. Its called evidence based prosecution. Many jurisdictions were required to prosecute if they received funding under VAWA.

There are some 6th Amendment issues, and hearsay questions in regards to 911 calls, but there is a high number of cases prosecuted without a complainant.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

What are the Title IX implications for a school employed coach and NCAA member organization to ignore this?

Without a willing complainant, none. Title IX only requires that a university offer a grievance process and that they follow it if it is engaged. If the complainant declines that grievance process, the university is no longer on the hook. The exception to this is if the university knew or should have known that the offender represented an ongoing danger to the campus community. A school wouldn't get dinged for that in a case like this.

[Pakuni]

Pakuni, I do this for a living. I've served on an executive board for anti-DV coalition, and have been an advocate who worked directly with DV victims, meeting them at hospitals and staying with them through trial (if it made it that far). I may know a thing or two here. It is outside of the ordinary. It happens but it is rare.

Your over decade old study of DV cases from a single city in California doesn't support your assertion. If you look at the numbers they gathered, 10.2% of DV arrests were prosecuted without a willing complainant which would fall in the rare and out of the ordinary category.

Respectfully, I'm not sure why your personal experiences are more determinative here than a study of 2,600 cases or, for that matter, my personal experiences. Could you explain?

Also, could you point out where you're getting this 10.2% figure? Because it seems a complete contradiction to what I quoted, and I'm not able to find it.
Thanks

[MuggsyB]

Depends on the evidence. Were there visible injuries photographed by police? Was there an eyewitness? A 911 recording? Did the victim make statements at the scene that could be introduced at trial via a hearsay exception?
We'll have to wait and see what comes out.

Fair enough.  Thx.