While the two processes may commence and proceed simultaneously, the campus process will very likely—and should in order to meet the school’s obligation of a “prompt” response—proceed much faster than a pending criminal case.

What impact can the campus process have on the criminal case? There are no absolute answers to this question. It may be that there is no impact. But the campus process could have a significant impact on the criminal case.

It is inevitable that for both processes to move forward, victims will be asked to provide their narrative of the sexual assault and applicable background information to frame that evidence. The same potential issues presented by law enforcement interviews of sexual assault victims are potential issues presented by campus investigator interviews. Often campus investigators have little or no training regarding sexual assault and may also have no training or experience in effective, neutral interview techniques.

During hearings and other disciplinary processes, victims’ narratives of the sexual assault are heard by the hearing panel—either as contained in an investigator’s report or as told during the hearing by the victim (or both). Additionally, other witnesses are heard from in this manner. These are likely the same witnesses who will be called upon during the criminal justice process. First, this gives the campus respondent/criminal defendant an advance review of the evidence that will be presented against them in the criminal case and possibly an advance opportunity to “cross-examine” those witnesses. Second, those witnesses’ statements can in some instances be obtained for use in the criminal justice proceedings. As human beings, we never tell the same narrative in precisely the same manner on any two occasions. So it is inevitable that some “inconsistency” will exist between the campus statements and criminal justice proceeding testimony. This can be used to undermine the credibility of the witnesses.

It is possible, maybe even likely, that victims may not have legal representation in either matter, making the role of a consistent advocate between the processes that much more important for victims.