LAWYER UPSET BY RAPE TRIAL'S AFTERMATH

A Southeast Missouri State University student, acquitted of rape last month by a Cape Girardeau County jury, was tried again this week. This time, a university disciplinary board found him guilty of violating a code of student conduct.

Rupert Foreman of Cape Girardeau was placed on probation and ordered to perform the university's version of "community service." He will be allowed to resume his course work this fall.

The entire situation has angered the attorney who represented Foreman in the April 20-21 rape trial. Cape Girardeau lawyer Kenneth C. McManaman feels the university should have dropped its disciplinary proceedings when his client was cleared of raping a university student.

In a letter to the university, McManaman wrote: "What (Foreman) is getting is the run around and a lot of hocus-pocus and sophistry from the university. I cannot and will not stand for this manifest of injustice."

Shortly after Foreman's acquittal, McManaman wrote the university to inform them of the verdict and ask that his client be able to enroll in summer classes. He had been suspended from the university since the incident was reported May 9, 1992.

But McManaman was informed that the findings of a criminal court are not conclusive as to university disciplinary proceedings.

George Dordoni, coordinator of student development at Southeast Missouri State University, wrote to McManaman that his client was facing charges different from those at issue in the criminal proceeding.

Specifically, Foreman was "charged" with violating three sections of the university's Code of Student Conduct, which accused him of theft, violating published polices of the university, and the "physical abuse, verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, harassment, coercion and/or other conduct which submits any person to pain, discomfort or indignity or threatens or endangers the physical or mental health of any person."

Dordoni said, "If we are aware of a crime that would simultaneously violate an aspect of our code of conduct, the university has an obligation to follow through with disciplinary proceedings. This is particularly true when the crime involves another student or member of the university community."

When the university refused to suspend its disciplinary proceedings, McManaman asked to serve as Foreman's legal counsel therein. The university initially denied the request.

"We try to make the procedures as non-adversarial as possible," Dordoni said. "When an accused student requests the service of an adviser, the Judicial Board will study relevant case law there are circumstances when students may request that an attorney act as an adviser.

"If the situation warrants an such an adviser, students are by all means allowed to have one," Dordoni said. Otherwise, students are permitted to have someone associated with the university present as an adviser.

In a letter from Dordoni to McManaman, the coordinator advised that Foreman's situation did not warrant outside legal counsel and reminded the Cape Girardeau attorney that he was not a member of the university community.

But on Monday, McManaman received a fax from Dordoni's office, informing him that he would be permitted in the hearing but advising him of the strict codes of conduct that must be followed by an adviser. What the university failed to do was to tell him when the hearing would be held.

The university had informed Foreman that they would postpone the hearing due to setbacks encountered with the star witness for the university the woman who brought criminal charges against Foreman. But the hearing went ahead as scheduled, and McManaman was not invited. The woman did appear, advised by Cape Girardeau attorney John Cook.

"If (Cook) was told when the hearing was, why wasn't I?" McManaman said. "The whole thing was stacked against (Foreman) from the beginning.

"The object of the hearing was to have fair play; I don't think there was. They didn't even tell me I could be his adviser until the day of the hearing while it was going on," he said.

During the university's disciplinary proceedings, students represent themselves. Dordoni said that students may seek advice from his office on how to prepare and present their case to the Judicial Board, made up of 12 specially trained university students. The board meets 22-25 times a year.

"The hearings can be very formal," said Dordoni. "Especially when the situation may call for the suspension or expulsion of the student from the school. But these are not criminal proceedings. Even if a student (like Foreman) is acquitted of specific, criminal charges, they still can be found in violation of university codes."

McManaman disagreed.

"As a prior graduate of Southeast Missouri State University ... I am appalled and disgusted by the university's obvious lack of sensitivity to Foreman's civil and constitutional rights," he said in a letter to Dordoni's office.

"The university's response to the situation is a double-standard put in place to make things administratively easier to deny Foreman's (rights)."

Foreman was subsequently found guilty of "unintentionally violating (Code of Conduct 4), therewith physical abuse, verbal abuse, threats ... which submits any person to pain, discomfort or indignity."

"Sanctions levied against students by the Judicial Board vary from a warning, to writing reports or apologies, to probation and/or community service, to suspension or expulsion," Dordoni said. "But the proceedings and the sanctions are meant to be constructive, educational forms of discipline to teach the student what he or she has done is wrong, but at the same time to levy sanctions from which they can learn a valuable lesson."

Foreman left town after the hearing and could not be reached for comment.