California Supreme Court: No Right to In-Person Cross-Examination of Accuser During Campus Sexual As

[PeteS in CA]

California Supreme Court: No Right to In-Person Cross-Examination of Accuser During Campus Sexual Assault Proceedings

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/08/california-supreme-court-no-right-to-in-person-cross-examination-of-accuser-during-campus-sexual-assault-proceedings/

USC expelled Matthew Boermeester for alleged intimate partner violence after a two-month Title IX investigation without allowing live cross-examination of his accuser and witnesses against him, either by Boermeester or a third party. The California Court of Appeal ruled against USC, which appealed.

At the time of Title IX proceedings against Boermeester, USC allowed individuals subject to a Title IX investigation to question the accuser in writing only. The Title IX investigator would then ask the accuser these questions outside the accused’s presence.
...
Boermeester asked the court to apply California’s doctrine of fair procedure to private university disciplinary proceedings, find that USC had failed to observe that doctrine by refusing to allow live questioning of the accuser and witnesses, and reverse his expulsion. The court declined, in a decision praised by USC.

USC is not a government-run university, so technically the 6th Amendment does not apply, but does USC really want to be thumbing its nose at a basic right? From the 6th Amendment, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment :

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, ...

[Fishrrman]

Seems to me this issue -- denying the rights of the accused in campus incidences of alleged "sexual asault" -- has come before the courts before.

It's time for this to get "pushed up" to the level of the federal courts (and eventually, the Supreme Court).

Sexual assault is a crime regardless of where it's committed, is it not?
If that be true, how can "the accused" then be denied his 6th Amendment rights?