You keep the Fifth. On campus, it costs something.
The privilege against self-incrimination applies to you in a Title IX hearing exactly as it does anywhere else: no one can compel you to give evidence that could be used to prosecute you. What changes is the consequence of using it, because a university is not a court and is not bound by the rule that forbids adverse inference from silence.
Why the two forums treat silence differently.
In criminal court, the prohibition on adverse inference is constitutional and enforced by jury instruction. A campus grievance process is an administrative proceeding run by a private or public institution under its own policy. Nothing in the Title IX regulations requires a decision-maker to disregard non-participation, and some institutional policies say expressly that a determination may be made on the available evidence regardless of whether a party participates.
The practical result is asymmetric. Declining to speak in court is cost-free. Declining to speak on campus can mean the only account in the file is the complainant’s, weighed under a standard as low as fifty-one percent.
What the presumption still requires.
The 2020 regulations require a presumption that the respondent is not responsible until a determination is made at the conclusion of the process. Non-participation does not suspend that. A school still has to reach its conclusion through the grievance process and on the evidence - and a determination letter that leans on your silence as the basis for the finding is a departure from the rule worth preserving for appeal.
Asking for a delay.
The most underused tool here is a written request to postpone the hearing for good cause while the criminal matter is pending. Many policies contemplate temporary delay for good cause including concurrent law enforcement activity. The request has to be specific, documented, and made early rather than at the hearing - and when it is granted, the dilemma often resolves itself, because by the time the hearing occurs the criminal exposure is known.
The middle path in practice.
Participate in writing and narrowly. Answer only on the charged provision, state facts capable of proof, and omit context, characterization, and anything about another person’s state or consumption. Use the evidence review period as argument rather than testimony. Let your advisor conduct cross-examination of the school’s witnesses regardless of whether you answer questions yourself. Decide the testimony question last, once the file is known - never as an opening move, and never because someone in an intake meeting suggested that cooperating would help.
Why one firm should hold both decisions.
Every choice described here is simultaneously a campus decision and a criminal decision. Counsel who sees only the hearing will advise you to explain yourself; counsel who sees only the indictment risk will advise you to disappear. Both are wrong in isolation. The defense has to be priced across the two forums at once, which is the reason this practice runs them together.
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.
