Callaway found not responsible in Title IX sexual assault investigation

Sophomore wide receiver Antonio Callaway has been found not responsible in his Title IX sexual assault investigation.

According to hearing officer Jake Schickel’s decision,“for all of the foregoing reasons and from the totality of the evidence I find that the burden of proof was not met and I find Mr. Callaway not responsible.”

Callaway and his attorneys, Huntley Johnson and Amy Osteryoung, attended his hearing last Friday, while his accuser and her attorney, John Clune, boycotted the hearing because the hearing officer is a Florida football booster in Schickel.

Callaway, who has been suspended since late January along with Treon Harris, saw his suspension modified in June to where he could attend classes at UF and use team facilities. He has been a participant in fall camp. Harris has since transferred from the program.

The incident in question, according to Johnson, "supposedly occurred in early December 2015."

The text from the letter of Schickel’s decision:

Immediately prior to the hearing I was provided a letter which was made part of the record from Mr. Clune, asking me to recuse myself. I denied the request. While he did not impugn my integrity he was concerned with bias. I recounted my experience training, education and life involvements and indicated that I did not believe that I would be biased in any way in favor of or against any of the parties. I have prosecuted rape cases, I have sat in judgment of lawyers. My family has dealt with rape issues. Note that this was a Student Conduct Hearing which is often held by a member of the university community. The issue is an alleged conduct violation by Mr. Callaway.

Mr. Callaway offered two (2) affidavits which I declined to accept other than as a proffer because they were not provided more than seven (7) days prior to the hearing.

Additionally I declined to accept , other than as a proffer, a notebook of e-mail's and text messages that went back and forth between various members of the university community and the advisors to [REDACTED] and Mr. Callaway. I did not accept the character witness statements offered by [REDACTED] as not relevant at this point in the proceedings. I further found the photographs embedded within the text messages not relevant.

I found that text messages which were not sent/received on the night in question were not relevant. I find, any prior sexual acts or sexual acts subsequent to the incident by were not relevant.

Prior to the hearing I had reviewed the record which included the pre -investigation, the Title 9 Investigative Report and various interviews, text message conversations and additional documents submitted by the parties and affidavits. I also reviewed the questions prepared by Mr. Callaway. [REDACTED] had not submitted any questions to be asked of the witnesses at the hearing.

Specifically as to the evidence I excluded the affidavits of Mr. as being inconsistent. I accepted the affidavits (or parts thereof) that were sent/received the night of the incident. I excluded all others as not relevant. I accepted the initial complaint to the University dated January 27, 2016. The investigative report is included in the materials. I do find the parties engaged in sexual intercourse. At issue is consent and injuries. I read 4(a)(l) of the student conduct code to require physical injury or endangering another's health or safety. Implicit in that is consent as set forth in 4(b)(l) & (2). Thus the question is whether [REDACTED] was "unable due to age, disability or alcohol/chemical or other impairment to give consent." There was no issue of being unable to consent due to age or disability.

I noted the statements by [REDACTED] in the investigation report wherein she stated did not consent because of intoxication and/or force, However the totality of the evidence suggest the contrary and she was not intoxicated to the extent she could not consent. The affidavits all indicated that [REDACTED] did not appear intoxicated. Further her own text messages indicated that she was pretending to be intoxicated.

The ER Reports do not suggest injuries nor do any of her statements. [REDACTED] was at Mr. Callaway 's residence voluntarily and not at the request of Mr. Callaway. Others were present the whole time she was at Mr. Callaway’s. She was not detained at any point nor did she ask for help from any of the persons present including another woman.

I further find that the time line as indicated by the various text message date stamps do not support her contention s of force or an inability to consent, They are inconsistent, initially reported being forced to have sex and then some time later indicated that she thought she was going to be forced to have sex. Another time she stated that she wasn't sure if she had been.

The only live witness was Mr. Callaway.

As a fact finder it is my impression that Mr. Callaway was honest, sincere, and presented himself well. He testified the sexual encounter was consensual, at least on the part of [REDACTED].

Both Mr. Callaway and [REDACTED] admitted he was high on marijuana. She stated, he was "faded as [expletive]". He stated, "I was so stoned I had no interest in having sex with anyone." He stated she was the aggressor.

The burden of proof in a Student Conduct Hearing is the preponderance of the evidence or "more likely than not".

The counter complaint was not heard as an investigation has not been completed by the University at this time.

For all of the foregoing reasons and from the totality of the evidence I find that the burden of proof was not met and I find Mr. Callaway not responsible.

Clune told the Tampa Bay Times that an appeal is unlikely and that there are no plans to file a lawsuit related to the case.

Discuss this news here in the Alley.