SEATTLE - A King County jury is deciding if the University of Washington failed to help a student who claimed she was raped by a UW varsity football player in 2000.
The plaintiff, known as S.S., was an 18-year old freshman equipment manager who became involved with Roc Alexander, a member of the 2001 Rose Bowl team, said court records. But she claimed that after their relationship ended, Alexander forced his way into her dorm room and raped her.
"She is a person who was harmed," the woman's attorney Rebecca Roe, told jurors during closing rebuttal.
Alexander was never criminally charged, but the young woman is suing the university civilly for $800,000, claiming UW athletics officials, rather than taking action against Alexander, suggested she transfer jobs. Court records allege then-assistant athletic director Marie Tuite told her if she "stayed on the football team and it was revealed that [she] was raped by a member of the teams, 'it would reflect poorly on the University of Washington's handling of the situation.'"
The defense reminded jurors that Tuite, as well as other athletic officials, have told a different story in court.
UW attorney Andrew Cooley “stark differences between testimonies of the different witnesses," and told the jury, "One of your responsibilities will be to listen to those testimonies, look them in the eye, and decide who you believe.”
Ultimately, the case hinges on the question: Did University officials act deliberately indifferent to the young woman?
"That is exactly what we're saying the evidence is in this case," said Roe.
The defense said the school provided the woman with counseling as well as mediation with Alexander, but prosecutors said during the mediation, S.S. wanted Alexander to sit out games for his actions and that Tuite "refused to consider suspending Alexander, stating the media 'would ask why he was not playing," according to court records.
"She knew what the complaint was and she set about to bury it," said Roe.
One other crucial piece of evidence got both sides arguing to the jury—a handwritten letter, signed by the plaintiff in October, 2001, saying, "With this I consider the issue I brought to the Ombudsman's office thoroughly taken care of… and closed."
"What can be more clear and emphatic than that?" said Cooley.
But Roe claimed the letter was from a totally different situation and was misrepresented to the jurors. To believe the young woman is lying, Roe said, "You have to assume she planned this false allegation in advance… You have to believe she’s willing to pay her own counseling bills in order to deal with the aftermath of the rape and the conduct of the university."
"They’ve imposed on themselves the burden to convince you these people got on the stand, perjured themselves—took an oath and lied., " said Cooley to the jury. "When they put that burden on themselves, hold them to it. And if they haven’t delivered the good, then the verdict for the defendant is the right result.”
The case went to the jury just before 12:30pm Wednesday. They adjourned at 4:00pm without reaching a verdict and will continue deliberating in the morning.
blankingout said on November 5, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Yeah so, what wheels do I need to grease to make an accusation against someone else, get their name printed in the newspaper with the word rape, have the article even question if I as the plaintiff am lying and still get my name, the accuser, pseudonymed?