-
Alaina Getzenberg, ESPN
BUFFALO, N.Y. — San Diego State College concluded on Friday that there are not any findings in opposition to former Buffalo Payments punter Matt Araiza after conducting an investigation into allegations of rape and gang rape. A legal investigation was additionally performed, with no expenses filed, and a civil case stays ongoing within the matter.
“Whereas the college can not present particular info associated to its pupil disciplinary proceedings and investigations, or particular info associated to pupil data, it might probably verify that not one of the former college students named within the civil go well with at the moment are the topic of an lively investigation,” SDSU mentioned in a press release supplied to ESPN. “As well as, they don’t seem to be presently enrolled, lively college students or affiliated with any athletics actions.
“SDSU reserves the appropriate to reinstate investigations based mostly on new developments.”
The scholar conduct investigation proceeded in July 2022 after the San Diego Police Division instructed the college that doing so wouldn’t intrude with their investigation. The evening of the alleged rapes happened in October 2021, and the lady, who was 17 on the time, reported to the police the next the day. The police went on to research the allegations for 9 months earlier than turning over its investigation to prosecutors on Aug. 5, 2022. The police didn’t suggest expenses be filed.
The Payments launched Araiza on Aug. 27, two days after the lawsuit was filed.
On Dec. 7, 2022, the San Diego District Legal professional’s workplace introduced that Araiza and the opposite college students listed on the civil go well with, Zavier Leonard and Nowlin Ewaliko, wouldn’t face legal expenses.
The civil case in opposition to Araiza stays ongoing with a trial date nonetheless set for October 2023. Dan Gilleon, the ladies’s lawyer, instructed ESPN in a textual content that his shopper didn’t converse to SDSU, reiterating that she was not an SDSU pupil and that the placement of the alleged occasions was not on SDSU’s campus.
Gilleon wrote that the no findings by SDSU is “meaningless.”
SDSU didn’t share intensive particulars into the 2 different former SDSU college students listed within the civil go well with, stating, “It’s correct that Matt Araiza was not a named respondent within the college’s investigation; nevertheless, when it comes to different people named as respondents, and who’ve been a part of lively investigations below the coed code of conduct this previous 12 months, the college can not share particular details about associated investigative proceedings or choices. It’s inaccurate to say that the college has dropped “expenses” in opposition to any of the named respondents to the investigation. Whereas we’re in a position to remark about Araiza on condition that he has supplied permission to the college to take action, the college can not remark nor disclose details about the decision of different college students’ instances as a consequence of privateness restrictions.”
Araiza submitted a declare in opposition to SDSU for injury to his popularity via The California State College Workplace of the Chancellor, Systemwide Threat Administration.
The CSU Workplace of the Chancellor instructed ESPN that the declare was returned “based mostly on inadequate proof and untimeliness.” The shape signifies that claims must be filed six months after the incident or a separate sheet with clarification for the late submitting must be included.