A Closer Look At Live Hearings Under Title IX
On-campus sexual assault complaints in federally-funded colleges and universities will now undergo Live Hearings as part of new regulations under Title IX. This type of investigation includes a presentation of evidence, witness testimonies, and cross-examination — all facilitated by advisors and Title IX coordinators. Parties can choose their own advisor (who can be a teacher, counselor, or an attorney), or one can be assigned by the school. Any member of the school — students, faculty, employees — has the right to this form of investigation, whether they are the complainant or the accused.
Who Has The Burden of Proof in a Title IX Live Hearing?
While a Title IX live hearing has some similarities to a court hearing, there’s an important difference when it comes to who has the burden of proof. Normally, it is the plaintiff or complainant who has the burden of proof. Under Title IX, the burden of proof falls on the school. The school is responsible for gathering evidence for both the complainant and the accused. The school must also ensure that parties remain free to discuss the allegations and gather evidence — in other words, gag orders are not allowed.
What Happens in the Live Hearing?
Before each live hearing, the facilitators will review all the questions to be asked by either party to ensure that only relevant ones are included. At all times, advisors are the ones who will be asking the questions, not the parties themselves. Any party or witness may opt-out of cross-examination, but once they do, their statements may no longer be considered in reaching a decision. The rules also add that a party or witness’ refusal to answer questions must not be the sole basis of the decision — for example, if the accused does not submit to cross-examination, it shouldn’t suggest that he or she is guilty. Both parties are allowed to present an expert witness, such as a doctor, to verify or refute claims.
A complainant may try to ‘drop the charges’ by informing the Title IX Coordinator in writing that they want to withdraw the formal complaint. According to the rules, the school can then dismiss the complaint or allegations. It is of course at the school’s discretion. Alternatively, the school may offer to facilitate informal resolution, if both parties agree.
If you are facing a Title IX complaint, call to get a free consultation with the attorneys at Roberts Law Group.
State v. B.S.: Not Guilty Verdict in First Degree Murder Case..
In this case, our client was charged with First Degree Murder in connection with a “drive by” shooting that occurred in Charlotte, NC. The State’s evidence included GPS ankle monitoring data linking our client was at the scene of the crime and evidence that our client confessed to an inmate while in jail. Nonetheless, we convinced a jury to unanimously find our client Not Guilty. He was released from jail the same day.
State v. S.G.: First Degree Murder Charge Dismissed..
Our client was charged with First Degree for the shooting death related to an alleged breaking and entering. The State’s evidence included a co-defendant alleging that our client was the shooter. After conducting a thorough investigation with the use of a private investigator, we persuaded the State to dismiss entirely the case against our client.
State v. B.D.: First Degree Murder Charged Dismissed..
After conducting an investigation and communicating with prosecutor about the facts and circumstances indicating that our client acted in self-defense, the case was dismissed and deemed a justifiable homicide.
State v. I.R.: Reduction from First Degree Murder to Involuntary Manslaughter and Concealment of Death..
Our client was charged with the First Degree Murder of a young lady by drug overdose. After investigating the decedent’s background and hiring a preeminent expert toxicologist to fight the State’s theory of death, we were able to negotiate this case down from Life in prison to 5 years in prison, with credit for time served.
State v. J.G.: .
Our client was charged with First Degree Murder related to a “drug deal gone bad.” After engaging the services of a private investigator and noting issues with the State’s case, we were able to negotiate a plea for our client that avoided a Life sentence and required him to serve only 12 years.