LOS ANGELES — A member of the USC football team was arrested Wednesday afternoon as part of a sexual assault investigation, according to the Los Angeles Police Department.
Police said that a female USC student told authorities that quarterback Mark Sanchez sexually assaulted her. Police said the alleged assault occurred earlier Wednesday.
Police told NBC4 that they are in the preliminary stages of the investigation. Details were not released.
Sanchez redshirted as a freshman in 2005. He earned a long list of honors as a quarterback at Mission Viejo High School.
Cripes.
(Hat tip: Ed Joyce.)
This is apparently very much breaking news, as there’s nothing yet about it on Google News or Technorati.
UPDATE, 9:38 PM: Boi From Troy, alerted to the story by yours truly, is on the case.
UPDATE, 9:57 PM: And now there’s an AP article with some additional details:
Sanchez, 19, was arrested around 4 p.m. just north of campus and was being booked for investigation of sexual assault, police Officer Jason Lee said.
“The alleged assault occurred earlier today,” Lee said. The USC student reported it to police but no other details were immediately available.
A spokesman for USC said the university will release a statement later Wednesday.
Sanchez is listed on the Trojans’ depth chart as the backup to John David Booty, but is expected to battle for the starting job this fall. Booty practiced only once this spring before he injured his back and had to undergo surgery.
Sanchez played the recent spring scrimmage and has been practicing with the first unit.
As I wrote in comments: “We should be careful not to rush to judgment, obviously, especially in light of the Duke rape case. We don’t know yet what Sanchez did or did not do… what we do know is that this is very bad news for USC.”
Thanks again to Ed, whose tip allowed me to scoop the rest of blogosphere on this story.
[UPDATE, 10:36 PM: The L.A. Times has new details:
Mark Sanchez, a redshirt freshman battling to become USC’s starting quarterback, was arrested in the 4100 block of McClintock just north of the campus at about 4 p.m. today after a female USC student reported to police that she had been sexually assaulted by Sanchez earlier in the day, said Officer Jason Lee, an LAPD spokesman.
LAPD’s elite robbery-homicide division is investigating the case. Sanchez, 19, has been booked on suspicion of sexual assault, and is in custody in the jail at LAPD’s Parker Center, in downtown Los Angeles. He has not been charged, Lee said.
USC Coach Pete Carroll, who was out of town recruiting, said early this evening that he was aware of Sanchez’s arrest and that the Trojan football program would cooperate fully with the LAPD.
I could be wrong, but I think the “4100 block of McClintock” must be a mistake, because I don’t believe such a location actually exists. So far as I know, McClintock extends from around 3000 to around 3700. For there to be a “4100 block,” it would need to extend south of campus, which I don’t believe it does. (See map here.)
The university housing locations on McClintock are Cardinal Gardens (3131 S. McClintock), Parkside (3730) and Parkside Suites (3771). I’m guessing either the L.A. Times reporter misheard or the police officer misspoke, and they really meant the “3100 block of McClintock,” in which case we’re probably talking about Cardinal Gardens. According to Becky’s and my recollection, a lot of athletes live there, because they’re the nicest apartments on campus.
UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: Indeed, the last alleged sexual assault involving a USC football player, Eric Wright, supposedly occurred at Cardinal Gardens, in Wright’s apartment. In that case, though, no charges were ever filed (though Wright was shown the door, and now plays for UNLV). Another reason to remember we should exercise caution here, and not rush to judgment.]
[UPDATE, 11:24 PM: I was right! The L.A. Times has corrected the address, and is now reporting: “Sanchez was taken into custody at the Cardinal Gardens Apartments in the 3100 block of McClintock Ave., just north of the campus.”
Meanwhile, from WeAreSC, via NDNation:
Statement from USC’s Michael Jackson, Vice President, Student Affairs:
“We’ve heard of an allegation of sexual assault against USC student Mark Sanchez. We are waiting for the LAPD to provide us with a report. We will of course cooperate fully with the investigation of this matter.
“The university takes charges of sexual assault seriously. Depending on the facts as established by the LAPD, we will determine the appropriate action. In the interim, the student will be placed on interim suspension while the case is pending.”
Statement from USC head football coach Pete Carroll:
“We’re just learning about this. We’ll cooperate fully and do whatever we can to assist. At this point, this is being handled by the University’s Student Affairs office and we’ll follow along with whatever action the university takes.”
In an interesting twist, Jackson used the phrase “charges of sexual assault,” but the L.A. Times changed it to “[allegations] of sexual assault,” because no charges have been filed — and I’m guessing the Times was worried about libel there. Does this mean Sanchez could sue his own university’s Director of Student Affairs for libel?? Somebody call Todd Dickey! Methinks Jackson’s office didn’t proofread his hastily prepared statement closely enough! Heh.
Anyway, the assault allegedly occurred about 12:30 a.m., according to the Times.]
P.S. For the record, the AP article apparently went out over the wire at 9:29 PM (five minutes after this post), and it didn’t actually appear anywhere on Google News until 9:33.
P.P.S. You think they’re going bananas in the Daily Trojan newsroom right now? It’s just after 7:00 PM Pacific time, so if the schedule is the same as it used to be, they have about 3-4 hours until they’re supposed to be putting the paper to bed, and methinks the front page is getting a major overhaul as we speak.
Then again, we had to deal with far worse when I was there. Once, when I was City Editor, a local youth committed suicide by jumping off a campus parking structure; we got the news at just about the time we were supposed to printing out our “final proofs,” at 10:00 PM. Man, that was a crazy night. We had to completely overhaul the front page at the last possible moment, and I ended up getting into a shouting match with the Editor-in-Chief in the middle of the newsroom about whether the lead sentence should refer to the kid as a “Hispanic male” or not. I said no, he said yes. Ultimately, I won. (The kid’s ethnicity was identified later in the article, I believe, but I didn’t see any reason why it should be part of the lede.) Not like that has anything to do with anything… but just thinking about the chaos they must be dealing with right now brings back memories…
UPDATE, 10:31 PM: Earlier, my 9:57 PM update said that I was “possibly the second website on all the Internets (after KNBC) to have anything up about” this story. I deleted that line, because I discovered (via kormal) that NDNation had something up at 9:15. So, they scooped me.
|
Categories: USC, College Football
|
April 26th, 2006 at 9:34:30 pm
Jesus H. Christ. Pile on the negative publicity. Hershel Dennis was eventually cleared when he was accused of something similar a couple years ago, but that investigation brought to light information that showed Eric Wright apparently had possession of illegal drugs. The police couldn’t prosecute Wright because his roommate refused to testify against him, but it was enough for the school to say sayonara and Wright is now at UNLV. With Booty nursing a sore back and Sanchez apparently having potentially done something wrong, USC’s not looking good at QB and Rocky Hinds ought to be kicking himself that he transferred to UNLV.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:35:53 pm
[…] USC QB Sanchez arrested, accused of sexual assault [Irish Trojan] […]
April 26th, 2006 at 9:37:14 pm
Indeed.
We should be careful not to rush to judgment, obviously, especially in light of the Duke rape case. We don’t know yet what Sanchez did or did not do… what we do know is that this is very bad news for USC.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:54:47 pm
[…] IrishTrojan’s Blog […]
April 26th, 2006 at 10:16:17 pm
. . . and to be possibly the second website on all the Internets (after KNBC) to have anything up about it.
If you’re keeping score, someone on NDNation posted the news at about 9:15. Not sure if that counts.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:22:14 pm
You’ll love this, Brendan. We here in North Hollywood are experiencing an honest-to-God thunderstorm! We NEVER get these!
A lightning strike knocked out power in my ‘hood for a few minutes, too.
There is most definitely a disturbance in the Force!!!!!
April 26th, 2006 at 10:24:37 pm
Dammit, yeah that counts. Well, at least I scooped the AP. :)
April 26th, 2006 at 10:26:57 pm
thanks for the updates on Mark..out of curiousity…..how did you come up with the nickname “dirty” for him?
April 26th, 2006 at 10:38:09 pm
Dan, I don’t know anything about the origins of the nickname “Dirty,” and I don’t use it… you’ll have to ask someone else, maybe BoiFromTroy. He uses it all the time, I believe.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:57:12 pm
as an ND fan, its not like there wasn’t any dirt during the Holtz era, Demetrius DuBose anyone? ND also had a sexual assault scandal, cant remember the year though.
Bottom line…. programs get too big, problems happen. Everyone takes their turn. USC, FSU, Tennessee etc.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:59:54 pm
Sometimes in sexual assaults they misreport the address to the press to give privacy to the victim.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:04:56 pm
Hmm. Well, reporting a nonexistent address makes that strategy rather transparent, if that’s what they’re doing. Hopefully the Daily Trojan writers will be clever enough to figure it out.
Eh, on second thought, that’s mightly unlikely. This is the DT I’m talking about. :) Perhaps I’ll e-mail them…
April 26th, 2006 at 11:07:31 pm
They seem to have reported the address correctly in the Wright case.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:36:13 pm
As reported in an update to the post, the Times has corrected the address. So presumably it was just an innocent mistake, as I originally suspected.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:37:26 pm
Now the big question is: how long till Drudge picks on this? In the wake of the Duke case, which he’s been following closely, I presume he will link to it. But I sure ain’t sending it to him…
April 27th, 2006 at 12:49:38 am
Mark lives in Cardinal Gardens with roommate Brian Cushing.
As I said, it seems “ambiguous” to me (see my picture ;) )
And again, the last two times similar allegations were made, nothing came of it. One could think there is a cottage industry about town.
April 27th, 2006 at 3:05:03 am
ackson used the phrase “charges of sexual assault,� but the L.A. Times changed it to “[allegations] of sexual assault,� because no charges have been filed � and I’m guessing the Times was worried about libel there.
Brendan, have you forgotten Copy Editing? Probably an anal (are there any other kind) copy editor’s corrections.
PS. It’s not libel if it came from an official, but the copy editor probably changed it to avoid confusion.
April 27th, 2006 at 7:54:13 am
the L.A. Times changed it to “[allegations] of sexual assault,� because no charges have been filed
I’m curious, and maybe a more educated person can fill in the detail. See, I’ve never been arrested, but don’t they have to have a reason to arrest you? or is this a nebulous case of suspicion?
April 27th, 2006 at 8:02:46 am
Certainly they have to have a “reason” (well, unless you’re an alleged terrorist at Gitmo… oh, snap!), but a “reason” isn’t the same thing as a formal “charge.” The police make arrests; the prosecutor files charges. They are two separate procedures. The police need probable cause to arrest you, but they don’t need formal charges to have been filed. For instance, suppose the police come to a house because of a report of a domestic disturbance, and they observe the husband acting belligerently and see new bruises on the wife, and the wife says “he’s been beating me,” so they arrest the husband for beating his wife. They don’t need formal charges to have been filed in advance in order to arrest the guy. Now, suppose the wife later “decides not to press charges” (actually this is a misnomer; it’s the prosecutor’s decision, not the victim’s, whether to press charges or not… but that said, it’s pretty hard to prosecute a domestic-violence case if the victim, a.k.a. the only eyewitness to the crime, refuses to cooperate). Does that mean the arrest was frivolous or wrong, or based on a “nebulous case of suspicion”? No, of course not… it just means there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute, so the bastard goes free.
Now, that’s just an example, and I’m not implying that if no charges are filed in this case, it means Sanchez is a bastard but there isn’t enough evidence to nab him… sometimes, when no charges are filed, it’s because the prosecutor determines that no crime was committed! But I’m just trying to demonstrate how arresting someone and charging them are two entirely different procedures, and just because someone might not ultimately be charged doesn’t necessarily mean the arrest was wrong.
April 27th, 2006 at 8:08:23 am
It’s not libel if it came from an official
That certainly isn’t true as a general statement. If a Notre Dame official issued a written statement today saying, “Brendan Loy is a child molester,” that would most certainly be libelous. There is no inherent immunity that comes from being a university official.
That said, Jackson’s statement almost certainly is not libelous because he wasn’t referring to Sanchez specifically when he spoke of “charges.” He said only that “the university takes charges of sexual assault seriously.” This is a generalized statement about the univesrity’s priorities, and although it was stated in the context of the Sanchez case — and thus I would argue that it was poorly worded and could imply that he’s been “charged,” which I think is precisely why the Times changed it — I don’t think you could win a libel case on the basis of that statement. Admittedly, I’m no expert in libel law, but at first blush, I certainly wouldn’t take that case on a contingent-fee basis (hat tip: Alan Gunn). As you say, this was most likely an anal Copy Editor being overzealously worried about such things. That said, Michael Jackson could have used an anal Copy Editor in his office, because the choice of words was unfortunate, especially given his status as an “official.”
April 27th, 2006 at 8:09:18 am
P.S. Did I just libel myself? :)
April 27th, 2006 at 1:18:26 pm
It certainly would be, on the part of the official but not the newspaper (unless they decide to emulate AP and not include a clarify paragraph stating there is no known evidence of BL being a child molester). The newspaper wouldn’t at fault for libel if it decides to reprint the statement in a news story because the news is “ND official outs blogger as child molester”.
This post ought to give you some interest web search hits.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:23:41 pm
Oh, I see what you’re saying. Right. That’s true, I suppose.
April 27th, 2006 at 3:45:14 pm
Actually, this is the first link that comes up if you type “Brendan Loy child molester” into Google.
April 27th, 2006 at 4:15:43 pm
I almost scooped Brendan (our posts were both made at 6:24 p.m. PDT) on this news. The TV channels in LA were on top of this story in less than an hour yesterday. I hope this is a case of false accusation, both because I know of Mark from his high school days here in the OC, where everyone is completely shocked, and because he is a sensational athlete whom I hope plays for the Trojans for several seasons.
The LA Times is reporting some timelines that don’t seem to make sense. For example, the attack allegedly happened at 12:30 a.m., in an undisclosed place, but Sanchez was at the 901 from 11:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., according to video footage. And the police arrested both Sanchez and teammate/roommate Brian Cushing, at first not knowing which man was the accused. I’ve been to the 901. I can’t imagine getting away with a sexual assault there without other people knowing (unless he was just grab assing).
The saddest part for Sanchez, if he is innocent, is that he will still almost certainly miss final exams, even if he is eventually cleared. I’m not sure how that can be made up in time for eligibility in 2006.
April 27th, 2006 at 6:23:51 pm
Special “I was falsely arrested extention clause”?
April 27th, 2006 at 7:34:24 pm
Mark Sanchez was seen leaving the club(”The 9-0″) at 12:59 as recorded on video surveillance. Half an hour (1:30)later two students who do not know him personally(Matthew Menjou and Altman Tsang) spotted him pushing someone’s stalled car. The accuser is reported as stating that the alleged assault occurred at 12:30. These are just statements reported in the press but they are important as far as they are accurate, in determining the validity of the allegations.
April 27th, 2006 at 7:42:34 pm
Lexicon, the Daily News has now reported that the alleged assault is said to have occurred at Cardinal Gardens, so I think we can rule out the “assaulted at the 9-0″ theory, barring further evidence to the contrary.
John, you make a good point. Who knows what the actual significance of the timeline discrepancy is, but it’s certainly worthy of some scrutiny. I moved it back above the post, adding this addendum: “Earlier reports stated that the alleged victim says she was assaulted at ‘about 12:30 a.m.’ So, there is an inconsistency in the timeline there. What conclusions we should draw from that is anybody’s guess at this point.”
April 27th, 2006 at 7:55:59 pm
Mark got the nickname of Mark “Dirty” Sanchez for the same reason Reggie Bush got the nickname “The President” shortly after arriving on campus: because it’s totally freakin’ obvious.
April 28th, 2006 at 9:17:34 pm
I was shocked when the reporters finally got to the name of the accused (after the commercials) after announcing “USC football player accused of sexual assault”. I stood there, open-mouthed and in shock - Mark Sanchez!?!?! Having known Mark when he was younger and knowing his parents for many years, this is a guy I would trust out all night with my daughter if I had one! This guy had an amazing upbringing, and is good-natured, polite and focused. No way he’d F up his football career over some girl. For one, why would he need to force himself on anyone when he’s set to be #1 (or not far behind) QB next year?! A lot of starry-eyed Trojan chicks - or just girls wanting to be the #1 Lady of the #1 QB - are probably clamoring for his attention, and I bet one of them was upset that she got rebuffed or was told he didn’t want a girlfriend, football is #1, or that they’re “just dating”. You know, the hell-hath-no-fury drunk-girl at the bar or something, vowing he’d regret it. I firmly believe in Mark’s innocence - he’s a smart guy who would be very aware of the potential for his brothers and his father to kick his a** over something like this. Besides, he just isn’t the stereotypical “big dumb jock looking under cheerleader skirts”. Let’s see….USC football player, remarkable athlete, smart, clean-cut, nice smile, good all-around guy, personable, 2 older brothers who were college QBs, a delightful, beautiful Mom and a good-natured, well-meaning but very strong hero for a Dad…can you spell E-A-S-Y T-A-R-G-E-T? And talk about TIMING! If this alleged “victim” is a smart cookie herself, she knew finals were coming up and she could really mess him up by crying wolf just when the time was right. Of course, I must say all of my comments about the girl are not based in fact as I don’t know the real story, but I just feel compelled to remind everyone what we have here: yet another feeding frenzy for the media and only a few meager scraps of fact. Wonder when the SAVE SANCHEZ shirts will come out? I want one!
August 7th, 2006 at 11:44:32 pm
[…] te number of transgressions with the law and NCAA rules. While most teams are reeling from sexual assault accusations, improper payments to players […]