247:
"Tennessee senior wide receiver Von Pearson remains indefinitely suspended from all team activities after he recently was named a suspect in an ongoing rape investigation, and theres still no indication of when the investigation might conclude. Sources with knowledge of the situation have suggested its entirely possible that Pearson will not face charges in connection with the alleged incident, based on whats currently known about the case. Then again, some once had the same thoughts about former Vols linebacker A.J. Johnsons off-field troubles last year, so its still far too early to assume that no charges will be brought against Pearson."
This is good news, assuming that no rape actually took place. However, Pearson wouldn't necessarily be completely out of trouble if he isn't formally charged by the police. Prosecutors only bring criminal charges if they believe they can legally establish guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," as the Constitution requires. Universities, however, may conduct their own disciplinary hearings related to sexual assault and adopt a much more lenient evidentiary standard, and that's exactly what UT's done. According to page 30 of UT's
Sexual Misconduct policy:
All investigations and proceedings, including disciplinary hearings, related to Sexual Misconduct and Relationship Violence must be conducted according to a "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard.
"Preponderance of the evidence" means that somebody is deemed guilty if the evidence shows it more likely than unlikely (51% or greater) that misconduct took place. This is the standard most often used to determine civil liability, and explains why somebody might be found liable in a civil trial but not criminally guilty for the exact same thing (e.g., like O.J. Simpson's
civil liability for Nicole Brown's "wrongful death"). "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is something approximating 95% certainty.
So if the accuser's story is even slightly more believable than Von's, he may still be in huge trouble with the university. For what it's worth, Jameis Winston was involved in a similar he-said-she-said incident, and while he wasn't criminally charged with anything he still had to undergo a disciplinary hearing at FSU, which he subsequently won. FSU also had a "preponderance of the evidence" standard,
as this excerpt from the university's decision to acquit Winston indicates:
I do not find the credibility of one story substantially stronger than that of the other. Both have their own strengths and weaknesses. I cannot find with any confidence that the events as set forth by you, (accuser), or a particular combination thereof is more probable than not as required to find you responsible for a violation of the Code. Therein lies the determinative factor of my decision.
Unlike FSU, however, I doubt Butch would reinstate Pearson and let him play football before a disciplinary hearing is over.