BIG WIN For John Doe In CA Appeals Court. Claremont McKenna Must Be Fair to Accused
A California appellate court has revived the appeal of a Claremont McKenna College student who was suspended for a year for violating the school’s sexual misconduct policy. The court found that CMC’s process was devoid of any opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the accuser who chose not to attend the hearing in person or remotely. The Second District Court of Appeal found that in cases “where the accused student faces a severe penalty and the school’s determination turns on the complaining witness’s credibility,” the fact-finding body should hear directly from the accuser. The court also determined that the accused should have the opportunity to question the accuser, even if only indirectly—an opportunity, wrote Justice Helen Bendix in Wednesday’s 29-page opinion, that did “not exist here.”
The court made it clear that in a “he said/she said” case, it is essential that the panel is able to directly assess the credibility of the accuser. Alexander Coteof Scheper Kim & Harris in Los Angeles, who represents John Doe said he was “grateful” that the court accepted his client’s arguments about how finders of fact should handle cases “where credibility is the key issue.” “I think this opinion gives a lot of guidance to schools going forward so they’re fair to everybody, both for the accused and the accuser.”
CMC/Doe Oral Arguments By KC Johnson
