(UPDATED Feb. 11 to add Twitter conversation with Paula Lavigne, author of the OTL piece on Baylor)
Since the August conviction of Sam Ukwuachu for sexual assault, much has been written about Baylor and its response to investigating sexual assault, especially those involving athletes.
But a question has remained since August 2015, when Ukwuachu was convicted and then later sentenced: Why was crucial public information regarding Ukwuachu’s indictment withheld in June 2014? Who withheld it? Why?
More important, why is nobody asking why?
He was indicted for the crime, whose victim was an unidentified Baylor athlete, on June 25, 2014. The list of indictments for that date does not include his name among the 100-plus released.
What happened was that Ukwuachu apparently was indicted first, then arrested and charged via a “direct indictment,” which shields the suspect and others from the open records of a pre-indictment arrest report. The name was then redacted from the indictment list released to the public.
According to the attorneys that I talked to, a direct indictment, or any such situation where the case is sealed, is usually used when a juvenile or someone else involved in the case (usually the victim) needs shielding for their own protection.
Under what logic could that be applied to Ukwuachu’s case? Concern for the victim? The other sexual assault cases also involved victims, but the DA’s office did not seem to show the same reticence in publishing the names of those defendants.
And anyway, this is all speculation without a specific arrest report. Remember that the information gap existed between the unreported indictment and the week before the trial began. The arrest, never reported, falls into the same void.
UPDATE: After reading Paula Lavigne’s Outside the Lines report on Baylor’s response to sexual assault cases involving athletes, I linked her to this article and asked her if she had any idea why the Ukwuachu indictment had been sealed. She replied via Twitter:
I do appreciate Lavigne’s taking the time to reply, but I don’t see the connection between an unreported indictment/arrest and a gag order. A gag order is a frequent ruling in a high-profile trial. But it relates to behavior outside of the court, not to the release of arrest information.
If the judge did want to limit public comments on the case, why not release the indictment/arrest (as is typically done) and simultaneously issue a gag order to all participants, as the judge did when Ukwuachu’s trial actually began? Wouldn’t that accomplish the same goal, while providing the Waco and Baylor communities with important information?
Still, with the indictment information not released, as she pointed out, the Waco Tribune-Herald would not be in a position to know about the indictment:
(NOTE: The rest of these paragraphs were part of the original post.)
The on-campus student affairs office investigation had apparently been closed by the time of the indictment. The various reports do not give specific dates on that investigation, but a university representative said they try to complete them within 60 days of reporting.
Were Baylor student affairs personnel aware of Ukuwachu’s indictment? Would this provide the “new information” that allows a university to reopen a disciplinary case?
The broader issue here involves the openness of the legal system. The Supreme Court has defended the open courts system — setting some sky-high hurdles for closing a trial. That’s not a service to the media; it’s a right of the people.
Always, but especially these days, Americans need to know what is going on with their legal system. When information is withheld, there needs to be an excellent reason for it. Otherwise citizens might lose faith in the fairness of their legal system.
Now that they know, however, the media need to treat this more seriously. It involves the withholding of sexual assault-related information to the Baylor and Waco community — to young women, to their parents. It hindered the media from doing their job.
This editorial from the Waco Tribune-Herald asks some important, direct questions, but seems to breeze past the issue of the sealed indictment with little acknowledgement, as if it were a mundane legal procedure instead of an ethical decision that deserves scrutiny.
Perhaps there is a good reason for sealing the indictment and not disclosing the arrest, and if that reason is offered, I will share it. (Update: Seven months later, a satisfactory reason still has not been shared.) For now, it looks like the same cozy relationship between police and college football team that has been cited and criticized on other campuses — though for an issue like sexual assault, it is particularly unthinkable that any college or its surrounding community would tolerate the strategy used by the Waco police and DA.
Even more frustrating is when no one cares enough to ask DA Abel Reyna or Assistant DA LaBorde.
Baylor has faced and has tried to answer a lot of questions following the Ukwuachu and Tevin Elliott cases.
Let’s not ignore questions about another question: a published indictment list that omitted the name of an accused felon.