Assault sets University, county at odds

The University's disciplinary process is being criticized in the wake of an alleged assault involving two Princeton students.

A lawyer for the alleged victim has accused the University of violating the victim's privacy, and local prosecutors have threatened to charge University officials with obstruction of justice and hindering public prosecution, leading the administration to indefinitely suspend disciplinary action against the alleged assailant.

The dispute stems over concurrent, but not collaborative, investigations of the alleged assault by the University and law enforcement authorities, and how each of those investigations should proceed. Though local authorities have accused the University of interfering in their investigation, Nassau Hall has defended its actions, arguing that authorities are straying from what has been accepted practice between the two sides for decades.

University spokeswoman Cass Cliatt '96 declined to comment on the specifics of any case, citing privacy laws, but she acknowledged that the University had recently been stopped from proceeding with an internal disciplinary hearing.

"We were prepared to go ahead with our regular disciplinary process in a recent case, and we were not allowed to proceed because of the intervention of the prosecutor's office, and that is a real concern for us," Cliatt said in an e-mail. "We have an excellent record of cooperating with the authorities."

The alleged crime occurred Nov. 5, when Public Safety officers called to McCosh Hall found a crying female student who exhibited several injuries, Borough Police Lt. David Dudeck said. The student and her boyfriend — both University undergraduates — had recently returned to campus after visiting friends at Vassar College.

Borough Police arrested the boyfriend, who later faced charges of first degree kidnapping and theft in New Jersey, as well as unlawful imprisonment, reckless endangerment, third degree misdemeanor assault and harassment in New York.

The accused student declined to comment for this article. Due to privacy concerns, The Daily Princetonian is withholding the names of both students.

Support nonprofit student journalism. Donate to the ‘Prince.’ Donate now »

Prosecutors have since dropped the charges, Mercer County prosecutor's office spokeswoman Casey DeBlasio said. The reasons for that action remain unclear.

The alleged victim, in the meantime, has raised accusations against the University. She claims Princeton illegally released her medical documents and violated a temporary restraining order against the accused.

"We are looking at a variety of legal charges against the [University]," Wendy Murphy, who is representing the alleged victim, said. Possible complaints include violation of the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

Murphy, an adjunct professor at the New England School of Law who specializes in the representation of victimized women and children, also said the University's actions violated her client's right to privacy.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

As a matter of University policy, parties to internal disciplinary hearings may submit whatever evidence — including documents — they see fit in support of their case. That material is, in turn, shared with all sides. The specifics behind the alleged privacy violations remain unclear.

For reasons that also remain unclear, Mercer County assistant prosecutor William Burns threatened the University with legal action when it began its internal disciplinary hearing.

"If you continue to demand [that the victim] supply documents pertaining to any criminal charges, you may be charged with ... Obstructing the Administration of Law [and] Hindering Prosecution," Burns was quoted as writing to the University on Jan. 8, according to a reply letter by University General Counsel Peter McDonough.

In his reply, dated Jan. 11, McDonough defended the University's right to conduct its own investigation independent of the criminal justice system. Criticizing what he called "a disturbing and untenable pattern of inhibitions imposed by [the prosecutor's] office," McDonough wrote that the public investigation was inhibiting the University's disciplinary process.

"We cannot complete a disciplinary proceeding in a reasonable and timely manner" under the county's conditions, McDonough wrote.

With the dispute ongoing, the University has indefinitely postponed hearings and lifted the temporary suspension placed on the accused. University administrators met with the prosecutor's office Friday to discuss the conflict, Cliatt said in an e-mail. "It's clear that the prosecutor's office understands our need to pursue disciplinary cases quickly and regardless of a criminal case," she said, "though we still expect to have future conversations about how to accomplish this."

The recent conflicts between the University and law enforcement authorities show that current practice of dual, independent frameworks is unacceptable, Murphy said. Calling the University disciplinary process an attempt to "resemble a fully-functional mini-criminal trial," Murphy said that the University's efforts usurped the power of local authorities.

University officials, however, have defended the process as time-tested and fair. "The process is not dissimilar from the ones used by corporate boards, nonprofit agencies and other organizations that handle disciplinary matters internally," Cliatt said.

The parents of the alleged victim expressed hope that this case will "initiate meaningful policy reforms on the Princeton campus so no other victim has to endure what our daughter has endured."