By Brandon Ortiz
bortiz@herald-leader.com
UPDATED at 3:30 p.m.: University of Kentucky football player Ashton Cobb’s temporary suspension has been lifted, and he will be allowed to return to school pending further disciplinary proceedings, the uncle of Cobb’s accuser said Friday.
Cobb’s return to school leaves open the possibility that he can play Saturday at the University of Alabama, but university officials would not comment.
Ashton Cobb
The woman’s uncle, Jason Workman, said Cobb and two teammates testified Thursday before a university appeals board made up of students and faculty. Cobb also submitted written character statements from 15 people.
Cobb’s ex-girlfriend, who says Cobb threatened to rape and kill her, also testified. The woman’s mother did, too, said Workman.
The board found that Cobb is not an immediate threat to himself or others, Workman said.
On Wednesday, Cobb pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree stalking, third-degree terroristic threatening and harassing communications. Lexington attorney, Jim Lowry, entered the plea on Cobb’s behalf.
Workman said a disciplinary hearing has been scheduled for 1 p.m. Thursday on campus.
Tony Neely, a UK football spokesman, declined to say whether Cobb, a junior safety, will play Saturday at the University of Alabama.
“He is proceeding with the student disciplinary process,” Neely said. “That is all I can say.”
The ex-girlfriend declined to comment Friday on the advice of her attorney, Workman said.
Cobb’s father, Wayne, declined to comment.
Lowry, Cobb’s attorney, declined to comment Friday afternoon.
Cobb is accused of harassing and intimidating his ex-girlfriend by calling her 19 times and sending 15 text messages in a three hour period on Sept. 25. According to court records, Cobb, 21, sent text messages threatening to kill and rape the woman, a UK student.
Privacy laws prevent university officials from talking about Cobb’s case. But Coach Rich Brooks said earlier this week that Cobb, a three star recruit from Pennsylvania in 2005, had been temporarily suspended from the university.
Cobb’s high school coach in Monaca, Pa., said he doesn’t believe the accusations against Cobb.
Center Area High School football coach Larry Taddeo said the allegations are out of character for Cobb.
Cobb played under Taddeo for four years, and was team captain his senior year. Cobb went home during a break last year to speak to the team, Taddeo said.
Taddeo, a coach for 27 years, called Cobb a great person. Taddeo currently coaches Cobb’s younger brother Ben, a running back and linebacker.
“I believe Ashton. I know how the family is raised.” Taddeo said. “It would really, really shock me if everything they are writing about Ashton is true.”
Taddeo said that Cobb’s parents have traveled to Lexington to help him.
The slow wheels of justice have just started turning in Cobb’s criminal case, but his fate at UK will likely be decided much sooner.
A Lexington defense attorney who has represented students in UK’s disciplinary proceedings said that its unlikely that Cobb would be expelled if he’s found guilty.
Lawyer Fred Peters said he’s represented “students accused of serious felonies and they did not expel them.”
Terroristic threatening is only a Class A misdemeanor, Peters said.
Peters said Cobb, if guilty, would likely be required to take anger management counseling and be placed on probation.
University officials say they do not have to wait for a result in the court system to proceed with disciplinary proceedings against students. In fact, the university can expel a student even if a criminal case results in a dismissal or acquittal.
The deciding factor is whether there is the potential for somebody to be harmed, Associate Dean of Students Tony Blanton said. In such cases the university will proceed with discipline even as a criminal case winds through the courts.
In Cobb’s case, the woman has told police that she feared for her life.
Cobb’s next Fayette District Court hearing is scheduled for Oct. 24.
On message boards, some UK fans have groused about Cobb being temporarily suspended, even though he is still presumed innocent until proven guilty by the courts and university. No official body has found Cobb guilty of anything.
But the university can temporarily suspend a student if he is a threat to himself or others. That’s because the university has to take action to protect students and faculty, Blanton said.
That’s the same rationale for setting higher bonds — or no bond — for violent criminals awaiting trial in jail.
Suspended students are not allowed on campus, not even in the dormitories.
Students have seven days to appeal the temporary suspension. They can demand a hearing be held before an appeal board of students and faculty within 72 hours.
If the student loses the appeal, then the university can proceed with discipline.
Officials meet with the accused student, who can either admit or deny the charges. If the student denies wrongdoing, he can demand a trial before a university hearing officer appointed by President Lee Todd. The result of that trial can be appealed to a board of faculty and students.
The student has the right to confront his accuser and call witnesses. The university or accuser act as a prosecutor.
The burden of proof is on the university, Blanton said. But the university must only prove that the student is “more likely than not” guilty. That’s a far cry from guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“A case in a court system can be dismissed on a technicality, on not enough proof for the court system,” Blanton said. “The university’s burden of proof is much lower than that of the courts. So someone could be acquitted in court, but still be found responsible for a code (of student conduct) violation in the university system.”
- ALSO READ:UK football player pleads not guilty to stalking
- ALSO READ:UK’s Ashton Cobb charged with stalking, absent from game
- ALSO READ: UK’s Ashton Cobb seeks reinstatement
There is no doubt that Cobb should be allowed to play, once he is enrolled at the University of Kentucky. Suspension of students for a domestic dispute? Has the University implemented this same procedure for its teachers? Staff? General population? In our country, an individual is innocent until PROVEN guilty. He has already been suspended for one game, which is more than is usually meted out for greater crimes than malice or terroristic threatening. He may well be guilty, but the charge is lacking any real substance and ruining a young man (or woman)’s future without a full-blown hearing is entirely improper.
It appears that JMM did not hear the messages left by Mr. Cobb to his female friend.
telling someone that you will rape and/or kill them while referring to them as a Bitch in several phone calls are not words from a stable person.
It is also not a person I would want to representing the University of Kentucky.
It’s sad to see the University chose the reactive path as opposed to the proactive by allowing this person to return to school. Thank God the young lady did not fall prey to this sick person. I only wish the school could see as clearly as she does, then they would have also said you are not the type person this school wants.
I heard the words, Bob, but apparently you are not familiar with the fact that someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Were you there for the text messages? Have you heard the voices to determine whether it was him or someone else? Have you heard BOTH SIDES of the story or have you rushed to judgment without knowing any of the facts? Do you know whether it was him or someone else? Have you heard the evidence? Received the jury instruction? Don\’t assume, lest you be caught in a similar fate. The plain and simple fact is that, every single day there are similar incidents at our District Court and, eventually, at Circuit (if the charges are serious enough, which this one, even if true, would not arise to the level necessary to trigger Circuit Court involvement). The University does not rush out and susspend general population students, nor does it suspend its professors, staff, or employees, until and unless it involves something that directly impacts their ability to perform the essential functions of their respective positions. Simply because a student plays sports does not negate their rights and abilities to defend themselves in an appropriate forum. The University rushed to judgment, improperly suspended a student prior to any proper adjudication, and properly reversed course and allowed him to return to school. If the football coaches decide to suspend and/or terminate his relationship, that will be their unilateral decision, but the University, itself, has no business dictating such a result. In the future, bob, learn the full facts before you post. JMM
So, Bob, have you actually heard this so called tape or are you specuiating on what might have been said.??? As the university has said there are privacy issues here and I don’ think the police would release such things before a trial.
Threatening may be a misdemeanor, but Stalking is a Class D felony…up to five years.
The dude definitely said the alleged words in a voice mail; that is not in question. The question was does he pose an immediate threat to himself or others. Who cares if someone would “never do something like that” or “isn’t that type of person,” they still need to have some accountability. I have never killed anyone in my life, nor to I have any intentions to, but if I killed someone, all that would go out the window. People wouldn’t be even consider the fact that I’ve never done it before, it’s out of my character, I’m not a violent person, etc.
As for the innocent til proven guilty, the university is NOT the US legal system - If students are in danger, they are within their right to take action. Don’t think for a minute that the Va Tech shootings did not make Universities more cautions surrounding potential threats to campus (eg Airports response to 9/11). Further, think of the ramifications for them doing nothing, while he holds true to his threats - then we’d potentially be here talking about why the University did NOT act. If it was even as simple as that, it’s clear the University did the right thing.
Any sports program from collegiate to professional would take similar actions if a player is brought up on such serious charges - all it takes is a search through just the NFL to see this. Again, innocent til proven guilty is only good for the US legal system - and he’s not serving jail time or anything until he goes to court.
And, yes, other students, faculty and staff would experience the same thing from UK should they be accused of similar actions.
The problem isn’t that the University has the right to action to protect it’s own students; It’s that they can still kick him out of school, even if he is acquitted. The University apparently has more regard for their own kangaroo court than they do for our Constitutionally established and protected legal system. Why wait for any proceedings? The decision has already been made, somewhere behind closed doors in the Patterson Building.