LeQuint Allen is Back

[OttoinGrotto]

The Complainant changed his story several times and that is clear from the police statements that LeQuint himself added as Exhibits to his lawsuit papers. The initial claim was that he was jumped by several players and his girlfriend stated to the police that he was jumped. So in that regard there is some statement that the Complainant did not throw the first punch. But the being jumped story lacks credibility because the Complainant then changed his story to LeQuint holding him up while another player hit him. Then the other player proved he was not there which threw that story out the window. So the real question is what the hell is the Complainant's actual complaint. But we don't really know that because (1) the DA closed the criminal case, (2) the Complainant never showed up at the SU disciplinary hearing, (3) LeQuint did admit he hit the guy and (4) SU, at least on some level, does not care what actually went down because as soon as LeQuint admitted he punched the guy, that was case closed for the SU student disciplinary system.

This sounds like a really clear explanation.

3 and 4. Geez.

 

[GoSU96]

Yeah, it sounds like Allen admitting to the punch gave them license to load the extent of the other student's injuries on to Allen, despite the other student's alleged involvement in other fights that night.

Must have been some punch.

That’s why don’t talk

 

[sabach]

Yeah, it sounds like Allen admitting to the punch gave them license to load the extent of the other student's injuries on to Allen, despite the other student's alleged involvement in other fights that night.

Must have been some punch.

That is exactly what happened here. And the problem is that the SU adults who reviewed Allen's appeal rejected the self defense argument because of the injuries that Allen caused. But that is stupid because Allen is a Div 1 football player so the damage he could cause is significantly greater than what I could cause even if we used the same one punch. Now, if the allegation was that Allen got on the guy and hit him 20 times, then yes that might be excessive for someone claiming self defense. But one punch is not inconsistent with a self defense claim, regardless of the injuries that that one punch caused.

The bottom line is that two levels of the disciplinary system stated to Allen that self defense could not be considered. Then, at the last level of appeal the SU adults did their best to try to make it seem like self defense was reviewed probably because they sensed this was not going to look good once it got out.

Hopefully Judge Antonacci sees this for what it was, a disciplinary hearing that genuinely refused to accept a one punch self defense as a defense argument to being struck twice by someone else so as to prevent that someone else from hitting them a third time. And if the Judge does see it that way, there may and I say may be grounds to hold that the decision was arbitrary and capricious and strike it down.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That’s why don’t talk

You've rightly made this point a few times.

Given that he did talk, however, that's why I'm still bothered that the outcome is so heavy on punishment. There's no education involved. It's throwing his best chance at education away.

 

[GoSU96]

More insanity,

5.3 The standard of proof applied within the University Student Conduct System is a preponderance of the evidence, which requires a demonstration that it is “more likely than not” that the respondent has violated the Code of Student Conduct.

How based on the record can the finder of fact determine Allen was responsible for significant injuries.

9.2 The order of the formal hearing is typically as follows:

a. introductions and reading of the complaint/appeal by the chairperson or hearing officer;

b.reading of the charges against the respondent, and the respondent’s response to these charges;

c. opening statements;

d. presentation of testimony/information/witnesses by the complainant;

e. presentation of testimony/information/witnesses by the respondent;

. closing statement by the complainant;

g. closing statement by the respondent.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the University Conduct Board or administrative hearing officer begins deliberations regarding responsibility. If a finding of responsibility is made, deliberations continue regarding sanctions. In appropriate circumstances, the order of presentation at the hearing may be changed.
——-
Uh, what evidence was presented to support a preponderance standard without the participation of the complainant?

And you can have an attorney participate as an advisor if there are related criminal charges.

And you aren’t compelled to participate in an interview. Don’t do it.
————
Also,

9.6 All parties are expected to appear at the hearing. If either party fails to appear at the hearing, the Hearing Board may proceed with the hearing or reschedule the hearing. In cases in which either party is unable to appear, alternative means for participation may be made available.

What a farce. There is no indication reading the policy that you need to include the complainant as a witness.

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

I've now read through all the legal papers. LaQunit has a tough case for an Article 78 proceeding.

He is claiming that at the first two levels of the SU judicial system, (before one student and then before the student board) he was told that self defense could not be raised or considered. Even if he is right there, the final SU appeal before the adults did discuss self defense and rejected it. One may disagree with their conclusion but there is a big legal difference with addressing a defense and rejecting it and never addressing an available defense in the first place. Only the latter is usually able to be successfully legally challenged.

LaQuint's argument is that if the first two levels considered self defense, they may have not given him a two semester suspension. A court will generally not make that type of assumption, especially if the last level of internal appeal did uphold the suspension and did address self defense. Even so, a one semester fall 2023 suspension would take him off the football team this season anyway.

He is also arguing in effect that the punishment does not fit the crime. SU suspended him for a year with the opportunity to be reinstated again to finish his degree after a year and presumably play football again. I doubt a court will consider that as a result that "shocks the senses". We may disagree but a court usually is very careful not to interject itself into discretionary decisions that were made at lower levels unless there is a huge miscarriage of justice. I would suspect that SU can show that they have suspended many students in the past who got into a fight with another student so as to show that LaQunit is not unique.

He punched another student in the face and allegedly caused a tooth to come out and head injuries. I probably would have done the same thing if I was LaQuint under the circumstances. But it would be very hard for a trial court judge to reverse the decision of a private college on the suspension of a student who admitted to punching another student in the face even without those injuries unless there were massive procedural missteps which now that I have read all the papers, I just don't see. Article 78 proceedings are not easy. I hope for the sake of the season that I am wrong.

How does he even have grounds to bring an Article 78? Is SU somehow a governmental entity?

 

[sabach]

How does he even have grounds to bring an Article 78? Is SU somehow a governmental entity?

An Article 78 can be brought against a private entity as well, like SU, but under very limited circumstances like if they violate their own internal processes or make decisions that are arbitrary and capricious. Someone posted the standards elsewhere in this thread.

 

[sabach]

More insanity,

5.3 The standard of proof applied within the University Student Conduct System is a preponderance of the evidence, which requires a demonstration that it is “more likely than not” that the respondent has violated the Code of Student Conduct.

How based on the record can the finder of fact determine Allen was responsible for significant injuries.

9.2 The order of the formal hearing is typically as follows:

a. introductions and reading of the complaint/appeal by the chairperson or hearing officer;

b.reading of the charges against the respondent, and the respondent’s response to these charges;

c. opening statements;

d. presentation of testimony/information/witnesses by the complainant;

e. presentation of testimony/information/witnesses by the respondent;

. closing statement by the complainant;

g. closing statement by the respondent.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the University Conduct Board or administrative hearing officer begins deliberations regarding responsibility. If a finding of responsibility is made, deliberations continue regarding sanctions. In appropriate circumstances, the order of presentation at the hearing may be changed.
——-
Uh, what evidence was presented to support a preponderance standard without the participation of the complainant?

And you can have an attorney participate as an advisor if there are related criminal charges.

And you aren’t compelled to participate in an interview. Don’t do it.
————
Also,

9.6 All parties are expected to appear at the hearing. If either party fails to appear at the hearing, the Hearing Board may proceed with the hearing or reschedule the hearing. In cases in which either party is unable to appear, alternative means for participation may be made available.

What a farce. There is no indication reading the policy that you need to include the complainant as a witness.

It's a garbage system that has the potential to ruin kids lives. I hope this case lends light to a system we've known has been highly flawed for years.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

Yeah, it sounds like Allen admitting to the punch gave them license to load the extent of the other student's injuries on to Allen, despite the other student's alleged involvement in other fights that night.

Must have been some punch.

Usually these kids have their phones out videoing. Any evidence to back up LA?

 

[MikeSU02]

The answer is yes, it can. Absolutely it can.

Don't know who is on the "no" side as I did not watch the video. But they're 100% incorrect. My guess would be Paulie.

I don't even think it's a "can", it's a "will" and has already probably started.

I mean, if you were other coaches/players looking at our roster and our recruits, wouldn't you immediately pounce on this?

I would assume it wouldn't hurt bball as much, but we are much more vulnerable on the football side of things and potentially other sports as well.

This is as about as teed up a situation as we can make to recruit against us.

 

[BillSU]

My feelings about the Student Disciplinary Committee or what ever the hell they call it.

A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides, and is typically convened ad hoc. A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion.

 

[ottodaorange]

This is what happens when the patients have the keys to a psychiatric hospital.

 

[CuseLegacy]

This is what happens when the patients have the keys to a psychiatric hospital.

No...someone just forgot to lock the doors at Hutchings.

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[zjscuse]

The people making this decision clearly have a bias against student athletes. Aaron rodgers tells a great story on Rogan about a professor at cal openly admitting to him that she was purposefully trying to get him academically suspended. A lot of the people crying about the right call fall into this category. The more I learn about this ordeal the more I’m just disgusted that they are willing to possibly ruin this kids life.

 

[Finwad32]

Bureaucratic BS… just ridiculous that this discussion has even had to go to the depths that it has because of that same bureaucratic BS. An idiot got smacked in the mouth for being an idiot. That should not be a shoehorn to life altering consequences. It’s a joke.

The worst part of all of this, is that it’s a near certainty this has happened to students without the spotlight of athletics behind them. And they’ve been negatively affected by the same BS.

I really hope something happens here, even though I’m nearly positive that it won’t. And if it in fact doesn’t, Syracuse can keep their BS.

Just terrible.

 

[RF2044]

I

Bureaucratic BS… just ridiculous that this discussion has even had to go to the depths that it has because of that same bureaucratic BS. An idiot got smacked in the mouth for being an idiot. That should not be a shoehorn to life altering consequences. It’s a joke.

The worst part of all of this, is that it’s a near certainty this has happened to students without the spotlight of athletics behind them. And they’ve been negatively affected by the same BS.

I really hope something happens here, even though I’m nearly positive that it won’t. And if it in fact doesn’t, Syracuse can keep their BS.

Just terrible.

I'm with you 100%. I'll always be an SU fan, but if this doesn't get resolved favorably, and this bureaucratic nonsense doesn't get common-sense overturned, it will negatively impact my financial contributions and decisions to attend games, bowls, etc going forward. There has to be a consequence.

 

[JRHEETER]

I'm with you 100%. I'll always be an SU fan, but if this doesn't get resolved favorably, and this bureaucratic nonsense doesn't get common-sense overturned, it will negatively impact my financial contributions and decisions to attend games, bowls, etc going forward. There has to be a consequence.

Please write to them and let them know.

Posting on here is one thing, telling them lets them know.

 

[JRHEETER]

Bureaucratic BS… just ridiculous that this discussion has even had to go to the depths that it has because of that same bureaucratic BS. An idiot got smacked in the mouth for being an idiot. That should not be a shoehorn to life altering consequences. It’s a joke.

The worst part of all of this, is that it’s a near certainty this has happened to students without the spotlight of athletics behind them. And they’ve been negatively affected by the same BS.

I really hope something happens here, even though I’m nearly positive that it won’t. And if it in fact doesn’t, Syracuse can keep their BS.

Just terrible.

Unfortunately I believe this won’t be resolved and poor LA’s life has been flipped upside because of one mistake.

Absolute shame and Syracuse should be EMBARRASSED

 

[kcsu]

I sent this to Kent and to John

 

[Moontan]

They won't just drop it without saying they've done a full review of their policies and have implemented changes.

They can weather the storm now, if that's what they're working on, to be completed and announced before preseason camp begins.

I assume that you mean, before the court date.
My guess... July 10th.

 

[kcsu]

Is this a concern?

“Allen maintained he did not throw the first punch, his lawsuit says. But others at the party gave statements to police that raise questions about who threw the first punch.”

The person who was punched never even testified. Hearsay doesn't stand. Unless a witness is willing to swear under oath.

 

[kcsu]

That’s why don’t talk

never talk period. The only words spoken should be i would like to see my lawyer.

 

[rrlbees]

The person who was punched never even testified. Hearsay doesn't stand. Unless a witness is willing to swear under oath.

That’s not what that sentence says.

 

[kcsu]

That’s not what that sentence says.

I just re read and your correct.