What if we were both drinking?.
Almost every contested campus case involves drinking on both sides, and almost every respondent reaches for the same sentence to explain it. It is the wrong sentence.
Why it is not even-handed.
Campus policies are not symmetrical on intoxication. A complainant’s impairment is potentially an element of the violation; a respondent’s impairment is not a defense and is rarely treated as mitigating. So a statement describing both parties as heavily intoxicated hands the investigator one half of their case and gives you nothing in return.
The knowledge element makes it worse.
Most policies ask whether the respondent knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was incapacitated. A respondent who says they were themselves very drunk is describing a diminished ability to assess the other person’s state - which, under that element, supports rather than answers the allegation. It is the clearest example in this practice of a sentence that feels fair and functions as a concession.
What the record shows instead.
Capacity is not memory. The evidence that matters is behavioural and timestamped: messages composed coherently, rides booked, payments made, doors unlocked, conversations held. That material speaks to what either party was actually doing during the relevant window, and it does not require anyone to characterise how drunk anybody was. Preserving it is the first task; describing intoxication is not a task at all.
Amnesty first.
Where underage drinking or drug use is part of the honest account, many institutions - and in New York, Education Law section 6442 - protect students who report or participate from conduct charges arising from that use. Asking in writing whether amnesty applies, before describing anything about substances, is what allows an honest account without creating a second charge. It applies to your witnesses too, and telling them so frequently unlocks the testimony a capacity defense needs.
Why you should call us.
If you are scrolling through search results trying to find someone to defend you, your search is over. You have found Spodek Law Group P.C. - and we are not your average defense firm. We know a thing or two about defending the accused in campus cases - and in the criminal courts that run alongside them. Over 50 years of combined experience, some of the toughest cases in the country, and we have come out on top. We have seen it all, and we empathise with you. We understand how frightening this is, and we have a legal team who can fight and win.
Unlike other attorneys who care about their reputation with the administrators and the prosecutors, our only goal is getting you the best outcome. We owe loyalty to only you. Our lawyers listen to you, your fears, and your goals. We care about your story, and that is where the work begins - by understanding and listening to you.
On billing, we are transparent about our fees, and there are no surprises. Choosing a lawyer is a big deal and cost is a real issue, so we are committed to being your champion irrespective of your ability to pay. Our firm has a simple belief: lawyers should only take on clients whom they can truly help. Many firms are mills that take every case through the door. We do not.
Working with us starts with a risk-free consultation, in person or over the phone. You can ask us anything, for as long as it takes, and we encourage you to ask the tough questions. We are available 24/7, we practise coast to coast, and every client has direct access to a partner. Call 212 300 5196 - an attorney answers.
