LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – The expulsion of a former University of Southern California football player has been overturned, as a California court has found the proceedings were unfair.
The Second District Court of Appeal of California issued its decision May 28, finding Matthew Boermeester was kept from cross-examining key witnesses after he was accused of intimate partner violence.
Boermeester, a kicker who made the game-winning field goal at the 2017 Rose Bowl, was said to have put his hand on an unnamed ex-girlfriend’s neck and push her against a wall. He claimed there was no intent to harm her and that he was “horsing around.”
But the woman said he was extremely drunk that night and he committed the violence against her when she wouldn’t let him take control of her dog’s leash in an alley behind her house.
Two witnesses let her into their side of the duplex, and Boermeester was asleep when she returned to her side.
She asked a Title IX coordinator for an order prohibiting him from contacting her and for temporary housing because he had a key to her residence.
The woman was crying throughout the meeting and admitted she still cared for Boermeester, then days later she recanted her story. She felt bullied by the process.
“Meanwhile, media attention surrounding the suspension had begun. Roe’s roommate reported Roe was worried about the impact the publicity would have on Boermeester’s future career and NFL prospects,” Justice Tricia Bigelow wrote.
“On February 8, Roe tweeted in response to media reports about Boermeester: ‘I am the one involved in the investigation with Matt Boermeester. The report is false. @Deadspin @latimes @ReignofTroy.’”
Boermeester’s statement denied choking her or slamming her head against a wall and reported that he and the woman were sexually intimate in the days after the incident.
Witnesses initially hesitant eventually described a scene of violence though. Boermeester was found to have violated USC’s misconduct policy and was expelled.
In Los Angeles Superior Court, Boermeester argued he was entitled to a live evidentiary hearing at which he could have cross-examined witnesses.
“In a case such as this one, where a student faces a severe sanction in a disciplinary proceeding and the university’s decision depends on witness credibility, the accused student must be afforded an in-person hearing in which he may cross-examine critical witnesses to ensure the adjudicator has the ability to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and properly decide credibility,” Justice Bigelow wrote.
Justice Maria Stratton concurred with Bigelow, but the third member of the panel dissented. Somehow, the aggressor turned into the victim, wrote Justice John Wiley.
Wiley noted that Boermeester was accompanied by his mother, an attorney, and hired a law firm during the proceedings.
“Boermeester then had the opportunity to submit questions for Roe, but (through his attorney) he declined to do so,” Wiley wrote.
“After reviewing the evidence, Boermeester had the opportunity to respond to the evidence, to answer questions posed by Roe, and to submit new information. Neither Boermeester nor Roe submitted questions for each other or for anyone else. Both opted to skip their hearings and to submit written statements in lieu of meeting.”