Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[BigDingus]

"A day after the party, Doe reported the rape to San Diego police, who opened an investigation."

 

"We were recently made aware of a civil complaint involving Matt from October 2021," the Bills said in a statement on Thursday"

 

Ok, how tf was this a "civil complaint" & not a criminal investigation immediately?

 

Also, if an investigation was opened the day following the assault, how did this not come up pre-draft, or did the Bills & other teams just not care? This isn't some vague complaint or something people can pass off as a date gone wrong. These accusations aren't even unwanted sexual misconduct like Deshaun Watson... It's straight up accused r*pe, over the period of an hour & a half, with multiple people involved against a SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD, HIGH SCHOOL girl! 

 

No matter how I look at it, I can't see this going well for Araiza. And getting involved with a high schooler is even worse. This was in October, so first couple months of a school year, the girl was still in the early stages of her senior year still too... essentially 4 months out of being a junior in HS. Given the years of police reports I've handled working at the county jail, this just shocks me it's only a "civil" matter.

 

Given the details about the damage suffered, it makes even less sense if ANY examination was done by a medical professional following the event.

[JoPoy88]

1 minute ago, StHustle said:

Wrong!

he’s not wrong -he’s addressing the consent defense -there is none in statutory rape cases. 
 

there is the reasonable and honest belief defense in statutory cases, which is entirely another thing

[mannc]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

You are conflating a mistake of age defense with age of consent.  She cannot consent in the eyes  of the law in California at age 17. 

Yes, you’re right.  But prosecutors would have to prove there was no reasonable mistake about her age.

[appoo]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Her age makes consent issue irrelevant.  She is incapable of providing consent by law, given her age.

 

He doesn't have to be charged with "gang rape".  If he had sex with her, he can be charged with felony statutory rape.  

There’s also the DA’s discretion that counts for quite a bit here. 
 

California law doesn’t say anything about intent but I can’t imagine most DAs not considering what a reasonable person would think about age in that situation.

 

if it turns out she was wasted that’s an entirely different situation.  Girls have the right to get drunk without being raped, and rape isn’t the punishment for girls going out and having fun 

[BeastMaster]

1 minute ago, nkreed said:

That's an interesting angle that covers the stat Rape charge, and likely where the Bills and other lawyers are landing. Because, from your link,

 

Contrary to the law in some states, mistake of age is not an affirmative defense in California.[8] This means that the defendant does not have the burden of proving their mistake of age defense. Instead, the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not reasonably and actually mistaken the alleged victim’s age

That definitely plays into his lawyers investigators that have witnesses that have her saying she was telling people she was 18

 

The only way this thing has legs is if his DNA was found

[nkreed]

4 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

I am on board with all of this but am pretty uncomfortable with the allegation he had unprotected sex with her while knowing he had chlamydia.

That's pretty ***** up.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, there's a timeline to include here. What if he didn't know he had an STI and learned about it in the 11 days between the alleged sex and the phone conversation saying the female should get tested?

 

Because 11 days is how long between the event and the police led phone call.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Simon said:

 

I can't confirm it's correct but this is from the Shouse law group in California :

 

In some states, mistake of age is an affirmative defense. In others, it is not.

Contrary to the law in some states, mistake of age is not an affirmative defense in California.[8] This means that the defendant does not have the burden of proving their mistake of age defense. Instead, the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not reasonably and actually mistaken the alleged victim’s age.

 

 

See above.  A mistaken age is a defense, not an exception for consent.  As a 17 year old, the law says she cannot consent.  If he says "she said she was 18", that does not make her 18 and able to consent.  But he can try to use it as a defense.  Given the alleged violence of what happened that night (perhaps after her sexual encounter with Araiza first), it might be a heavy lift for a jury to consider she lied to him and then was unfortunate too be raped by his friends.

[Doc]

9 minutes ago, Beast said:

OK, mistake of age could possibly keep Araiza from being charged or convicted of statutory rape. California is a state that recognizes mistake of age. 
 

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/mistake-of-age-defense/

 

Interesting.  If they have witnesses that say she claimed she was 18, she has no case. 

[UKBillFan]

1 minute ago, BigDingus said:

"A day after the party, Doe reported the rape to San Diego police, who opened an investigation."

 

"We were recently made aware of a civil complaint involving Matt from October 2021," the Bills said in a statement on Thursday"

 

Ok, how tf was this a "civil complaint" & not a criminal investigation immediately?

 

Also, if an investigation was opened the day following the assault, how did this not come up pre-draft, or did the Bills & other teams just not care? This isn't some vague complaint or something people can pass off as a date gone wrong. These accusations aren't even unwanted sexual misconduct like Deshaun Watson... It's straight up accused r*pe, over the period of an hour & a half, with multiple people involved against a SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD, HIGH SCHOOL girl! 

 

No matter how I look at it, I can't see this going well for Araiza. And getting involved with a high schooler is even worse. This was in October, so first couple months of a school year, the girl was still in the early stages of her senior year still too... essentially 4 months out of being a junior in HS. Given the years of police reports I've handled working at the county jail, this just shocks me it's only a "civil" matter.

 

Given the details about the damage suffered, it makes even less sense if ANY examination was done by a medical professional following the event.

A rape kit was carried out by the police on the day of the report. Seems that the Bill’s were unaware of the allegation at time of draft but found out at the end of July. They’re awaiting a response from the DA about whether criminal charges are to be bought. Araiza’s defence is either he didn’t have sex with her or it was consensual and he believed she was 18 because she was saying as such.

[strive_for_five_guy]

15 minutes ago, Arkady Renko said:

Doe’s lawyer is unprofessional.  

His messages also make it clear why they waited until Haack was cut to file the lawsuit…

[Beck Water]

11 minutes ago, Cheektowaga Chad said:

Reading those texts, I feel like the lawyers could be posting in this thread too 

 

Yeah, I'm left with an uncomfortable feeling that neither the Bills nor Araiza should be putting much confidence in his lawyer

[UKBillFan]

Just now, Beck Water said:

 

Yeah, I'm left with an uncomfortable feeling that neither the Bills nor Araiza should be putting much confidence in his lawyer

Though I don’t think Jane Doe should be putting much faith in hers either.

[jkirchofer]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Interesting.  If they have witnesses that say she claimed she was 18, she has no case. 

So because she said she was 18 she deserved it? That is what you are implying here. Jesus that is toxic.

[BeastMaster]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Interesting.  If they have witnesses that say she claimed she was 18, she has no case. 

That's what his lawyer said on the news

 

They are running with the civil suit to try and cash in before it falls apart

[Since1981]

10 minutes ago, mannc said:

That “punt god” buzz was good while it lasted—-> about one punt.
 

Where’s boring Clark Kent Brian Mormon? 

[Doc]

Just now, jkirchofer said:

So because she said she was 18 she deserved it? That is what you are implying here. Jesus that is toxic.

 

Deserved what?  Rape?  LOL, not even close to what I was saying.

[Beast]

9 minutes ago, appoo said:

And this is probably what Matt told the Bills. 
 

Along with the evidence of violence it would not be enough for me, personally.

 

But it’s also reasonable to think that it would be enough for other reasonable, smart and empathetic people.

 

I’m not a moral cop and I don’t care how much you slept around in college so long as you weren’t hurting others while doing so

Yeah, there is still a big question of what went on in that bedroom and was Araiza involved? And if he led her to that bedroom and left, or stayed and watched and didn’t participate, is he an accomplice?

 

His attorney made mention of something to the effect of someone could be in trouble for that….just not Araiza.

 

I guess we’ll see. Isn’t one of those other two players mentioned no longer on the football team or at school? I wonder why?

 

From the Op’s article; “Ewaliko was on the team last year as a freshman but is not on the current roster.”

 

Hmmmmm.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Beast

[UKBillFan]

1 minute ago, jkirchofer said:

So because she said she was 18 she deserved it? That is what you are implying here. Jesus that is toxic.

I think Doc is just referring to the statutory rape allegation.

[Mango]

17 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I have 2 sons, ages 21 and 19.  I'd be pissed if a girl, who witnesses admit was claiming to be 18+ but was really underage, got them to have sex and then cried about actually being 17.

 

 

Not worth the blowback.

 

 

That part where he says "I don't remember anything that night" says he didn't admit to anything.  And if they have no DNA, they have no case.

What you want and what is legal are two different things. The example you gave likely rarely happens. But when it comes to a teen pregnancy. Possible future child support. Or in instances like this, actions in the lead up to violent sexual assault, the letter of the law is more strictly followed. 

[Herc11]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The suit alleges the cops prompted her to call and taped it.  This would be easy to prove.  It's evidence.

California is a two-party consent state. Meaning, you can not record a phone call without both parties consenting. I'm curious if the police had a warrant for taping the phone call. If not it could bite them in the ass.