Hamilton County Officials Ignore Judge's Order Sealing Xavier University Rape Case Records: Court Clerk Snafu Allows Details To Emerge

Rape Records Were Ordered Sealed

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Because Hamilton County Court Clerk Tracy Winkler's office neglected to follow a judicial order sealing documents in a criminal case involving two alleged rapes at Xavier University, The Daily Bellwether now has details about the incidents.  The details are excerpted below.  The suspect, Sean Marron, was acquitted last fall after a non-jury trial.  Federal education officials are investigating whether Xavier mishandled campus disciplinary proceedings after two female students reported they had been sexually assaulted.  But the court files obtained by The Daily Bellwether make clear there was no coverup by campus authorities or police in Norwood.  Both cases received prompt attention as criminal matters when reported by the female students.  Neither incident took place on campus.  And one of the female students gave differing versions to Xavier and Norwood police.


Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman entered an order sealing the criminal records on Dec. 1.  Somehow, his order feel through the cracks and the documents remain accessible online.  The female students won't be identified by name, but by their initials, C.P. and K.B.  The most detailed info about the alleged rapes are from legal motions submitted by defense counsel in advance of the trial.

C.P. events:

"Based upon discovery provided to date, which primarily consists of reports from the City of Norwood Police Department and the Xavier University Office of Students, the alleged incident occurred on November 22, 2008.  On that date, C.P. attended a party at the residence belonging to defendant and his roommates located at . . . Cleneay Ave.  Prior to arriving at the party. C.P. consumed 'three to four shots of vodka' (City of Norwood Offense/Incident Report No. 08-2919).  While at the party, C.P. 'drank between four and six cups of beer.'  C.P. has indicated that she and Defendant were not in a relationship but that they had known each other for a few weeks.

"The facts as to what specifically occurred between Defendant and C.P. are contested.  However, as it relates to this Motion, the relevant analysis requires consideration of those facts the State will likely offer as proof of Defendant's alleged guilt, not necessarily those disputed facts.  With this in mind, the evidence will establish that Defendant and C.P. were talking at the party.  At some point, C.P. and defendant went to his bedroom.  C.P. alleges that Defendant removed both his and her clothing and the two began having intercourse.  C.P. will presumably testify that during the sexual encounter, C.P. told Defendant that she did not want to have sex.  C.P. did not know whether Defendant ejaculated.  When the sexual conduct stopped, C.P. began crying, retrieved her clothes and walked back to her dorm room.

"The following morning, C.P. called a friend who was the victim of a prior sexual assault to tell her about the encounter.  At the friend's suggestion, C.P. went to the University Hospital to be examined.  C.P reported the incident to the Xavier University police department, who referred her to the Norwood police since the apartment was located off campus.  After interviewing C.P. and Defendant, the police report notes that on 12-19-08 the case was closed as the 'complainant does not wish to prosecute.'

"In statements given by Defendant to the Norwood police, and during the course of a hearing before the Xavier University Office of Students, Defendant does not dispute the fact that he engaged in sexual conduct with C.P.  However, the entire encounter was completely consensual, C.P. mutually participated, and that the conduct was limited to digital penetration.  Hence, not unexpectedly, the University Hospital exam report noted minimal findings of redness and an abrasion as the posterior forchette.  C.P. had not showered prior to the examination and no semen was found.

"As previously mentioned, criminal charges were not initially pursued.  Not until such time as C.P. learned of the allegations contained in Count Four of the Indictment (the other accuser), did she seek to have law enforcement pursue charges for the incident occurring 2 years prior."

K.B. events:

"Defendant and K.B. knew each other well.  While it may be disputed as to whether the two were in a 'dating' relationship, K.B. often came over to Defendant's apartment.  Although they had not engaged in sexual conduct, they had kissed and been minimally intimate.

"Despite the alleged incident with K.B. occurring on 'an unknown date between March 20th and 30th 2009, the report to police was not mate until October 6, 2010 (Norwood City Police Uniform Incident Report No. 10-2397).  According to her report, K.B. indicated that she went to Defendant's apartment to watch a movie.  She purports to have been wearing a shirt, sweatshirt and pajama bottoms.  The two were lying on Defendant's bed watching the movie Emily Rose.  After K.B. fell asleep, she awoke to Defendant kissing her neck and cheek.  K.B. 'ignored' Defendant and continued to act like she was still asleep.  She then claims that Defendant turned her over on her back and continued kissing her.  The report further indicates that her shirt and bra were removed, but that she didn't know how Defendant did it.  From this point, it is anticipated that K.B. would testify that Defendant removed her pajama pants and underwear and that Defendant began biting her neck, chest, stomach and thighs.  K.B. stated that she told Defendant to stop but her persisted.  Defendant then purportedly parted her legs with his knees and inserted his penis into her vagina against her will.  K.B. was then able to push Defendant away and she gathered her clothes and left the apartment.

"It is important to mention that K.B. gave a different account of events to the Xavier University police department.  The report states, '[Defendant] proceeded to force himself on her by removing her clothes and attempting to have sex with her.  [K.B.] stated that [Defendant] was very close to making penetration, but with her struggling to get off of him, he did not.'  (Xavier University Off-Campus Incident Report, No. 10-00608).  Hence, K.B.'s own account raises a material issue of whether Defendant committed the alleged offense of rape.  Defendant vehemently denies engaging in sexual conduct, and specifically denies penetrating her vagina in any manner."

Prosecutor's Response (excerpt):


"Here, the victims of both crimes were known to the defendant.  The defendant had pursued both women prior to the rapes but they had rebuffed his advances.  When the rapes occurred, each woman was in a particularly vulnerable state.  C.P. was intoxicated and her friends left her at a party where the defendant raped her.  K.B. had lost most of her friends after she took some time off from school and had found herself without a social network or support.  Most significantly, the defendant exhibited the specific behavior of biting the women's nipples very hard, making K.B. bleed and repeatedly shocking C.P. into consciousness.  He also bit K.B. on other areas of her body."