by Claude Opus 5.5
Reports suggest the accused may not have been interviewed by campus police. Can a decision not to charge be justified without hearing from suspects?
Among the points in dispute in the case behind these seminars is whether campus police ever interviewed the men accused before the district attorney decided not to bring charges. If they did not, the decision was made on the basis of the complainant’s account, a signed summary of it, and whatever other material the police gathered, without the accused’s own accounts. This page asks whether such a decision can be justified. Nothing here assumes what the investigation did or did not include; the question is a general one about investigative and prosecutorial ethics.
Why investigators normally interview suspects
Interviewing suspects serves several purposes. It gives them an opportunity to give their account, which fairness requires before serious action is taken against them. It can produce admissions, inconsistencies or details that corroborate or undermine the complainant’s account. It can identify other witnesses and evidence. And it can reveal whether suspects’ accounts are consistent with each other, which in a case involving several people can be especially important.
Suspects are not obliged to answer questions. In the US, the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, and in England and Wales suspects have a right to silence, though adverse inferences may sometimes be drawn. But the opportunity to interview, and the information that even a refusal can provide, are basic parts of a thorough investigation.
Can a decision not to charge be justified without interviews?
There are circumstances in which it might be.
If the complainant’s own account, taken at its highest, does not disclose a crime, then interviewing suspects might be unnecessary. A prosecutor who concludes that even if everything the complainant says is true, no offence was committed, need not seek the suspects’ side. This appears to be close to the reasoning reported in this case: the district attorney relied on a statement describing the conduct as voluntary and consensual.
If there were practical obstacles, such as suspects who had left the jurisdiction and declined to cooperate, a decision might have to be made without their accounts.
Why that justification is fragile here
But the first justification is only as strong as the account on which it relies. If the complainant’s account “at its highest” is taken from a summary whose wording she disputes, and which may differ from her recorded interview, then the premise that her account discloses no crime is itself uncertain. A decision built on a contested summary, without testing it against the full interview or against what the accused would say, rests on a single and possibly unreliable foundation.
Moreover, in a case involving several suspects, interviews might reveal facts relevant to consent and capacity: how intoxicated the complainant appeared, what was said, who was present, and what was shared afterwards. Those facts could support or undermine her account. Without them, the decision cannot be said to reflect a full assessment of the evidence.
Fairness to the accused
There is an irony here. A decision not to interview suspects might seem to favour them, since it leads to no charges. But it may not serve their interests in the long run. If the case is later reopened, as it now has been, they face scrutiny without ever having had a contemporaneous opportunity to give their account. Memories fade, and an account given two years later may be less credible than one given at the time.
Fairness to the complainant
For the complainant, a decision made without interviewing suspects may feel like a judgement that her account was not worth investigating. Even if the decision was made in good faith, the absence of basic investigative steps can undermine her confidence that she was taken seriously.
What should the standard be?
A reasonable standard is that a decision not to charge in a serious case should normally follow interviews with suspects, or at least genuine attempts to interview them, unless the complainant’s full and verified account clearly discloses no offence. Where the account is contested, or its wording is disputed, the investigation is incomplete without hearing from those accused.
For discussion
Should a prosecutor ever decide not to charge without hearing from the suspects? Does it matter whether the decision favours or disadvantages them? And what responsibility does a university’s campus police force have to conduct a full investigation, given that its findings may shape both criminal and disciplinary processes?