Details released on UF's decision on WR Antonio Callaway incident, allegations
GAINESVILLE, Fla. – With an official decision released on Florida WR Antonio Callaway, in which Callaway was found not responsible, details have emerged about the incident and the allegation.
Callaway’s attorney Huntley Johnson provided reporters with a redacted copy of the hearing officer’s decision.
Hearing officer Jake Schickel, a source of recent controversy as a UF booster, stated he was asked to recuse himself, but declined the request.
“Immediately prior to the hearing I was provided a letter which was made part of the record from Mr. Clune, asking me to recuse myself. I denied the request. While he did not impugn my integrity he was concerned with bias. I recounted my experience training, education and life involvements and indicated that I did not believe that I would be biased in any way in favor of or against any of the parties. I have prosecuted rape cases, I have sat in judgment of lawyers. My family has dealt with rape issues. Note that this was a Student Conduct Hearing which is often held by a member of the university community. The issue is an alleged conduct violation by Mr. Callaway.”
The report states that the accuser was at Callaway’s residence, but not at his request.
“The accuser was at Mr. Callaway ‘s residence voluntarily and not at the request of Mr. Callaway. Others were present the whole time she was at Mr. Callaway’s. She was not detained at any point nor did she ask for help from any of the persons present including another woman,” Schickel writes.
“I further find that the time line as indicated by the various text message date stamps do not support her contentions of force or an inability to consent, They are inconsistent, initially reported being forced to have sex and then some time later indicated that she thought she was going to be forced to have sex. Another time she stated that she wasn’t sure if she had been raped.”
Schickel considered whether the accuser could consent to sexual activity.
“I noted the statements by (redacted) in the investigation report wherein she stated did not consent because of intoxication and/or force, However the totality of the evidence suggest the contrary and she was not intoxicated to the extent she could not consent. The affidavits all indicated that (redacted) did not appear intoxicated. Further her own text messages indicated that she was pretending to be intoxicated.”
It also noted that the ER report did not show any sign of injuries.
“I further find that the time line as indicated by the various text message date stamps do not support her contentions of force or an inability to consent, They are inconsistent, initially reported being forced to have sex and then some time later indicated that she thought she was going to be forced to have sex. Another time she stated that she wasn’t sure if she had been raped,” Schickel writes.
Shickel ultimately sided with Callaway’s explanation offered at the hearing, at which the accuser and her attorney did not participate.
“As a fact finder it is my impression that Mr. Callaway was honest, sincere, and presented himself well. He testified the sexual encounter was consensual, at least on the part of (redacted). Both Mr. Callaway and (redacted) admitted he was high on marijuana. She stated, he was ‘faded as (expletive).’ He stated, ‘I was so stoned I had no interest in having sex with anyone.’ He stated she was the aggressor,” the report reads.
The report was accompanied by a fiery statement from Johnson:
The complainant’s advisor has gone out of his way to distort Mr. Callaway’s actions. Please allow us to level the playing field.
This decision by the hearing officer reflects only a fraction of the evidence which is not favorable to the complainant.
The young lady’s advisor has said, “they will take their witnesses and go elsewhere.”
They need to be careful what they wish for.
The accuser has 10 business days to appeal the decision.