This Friday, five former San Diego State football players accused of rape will get their day in court.
Prosecutors declined to press charges against them in December, citing a lack of evidence. But the young woman who accused them has filed a civil lawsuit against the men, including punter Matt Araiza, seeking unspecified damages.
Brian Watkins, a civil and criminal defense attorney who is not a party to the case, said in cases like this, it boils down to credibility.
"There's no evidence where something's consensual or nonconsensual but often the person's word," he said. "So a person's credibility is huge.”
It’s that credibility that Araiza’s attorneys are disputing. In the complaint, Jane Doe claims she contracted a sexually transmitted disease because of the alleged rape. She has since walked back that claim.
"So the fact that she made that allegation and now has to backtrack and remove that allegation again goes through credibility, which opens up a Pandora's box,” Watkins said.
Because Jane Doe brought that claim, Araiza's attorneys said her sexual history is now relevant to the case. Watkins agrees.
“Clearly, in this case, it's relevant at least to one main point because she had alleged that she contacted a sexually transmitted disease from this encounter,” he said.
The burden of proof is much lower in a civil case than in a criminal one. Instead of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, in a civil trial, all the plaintiff has to do is show that the alleged incident was more likely to happen than not.
At the preliminary hearing this Friday, a judge will decide what evidence can be used, and that's what both sides are arguing over. Watkins said the big fight will be over Doe’s sexual history.
“What the relevance of her past sexual history is, is something that a judge is going to need to make a determination,” he said.
Another contentious issue is whether video evidence collected by police of the alleged incident could be entered into evidence. A criminal court judge unsealed the videos in April but the judge in the civil case needs to make that determination.
The young woman’s attorneys called the videos child pornography and have filed a motion to squash them. A hearing on that is scheduled for July 21.
