The hearing continues in a civil case against former San Diego State University football star Matt Araiza. At the center of Friday's arguments were videos of the alleged rape off campus.
Araiza's attorneys want to use them as part of his defense. They said this was about fairness. In a criminal trial, those videos would be available for his defense, said Dick Semerdjian, one of Araiza's attorneys.
He said they should be available for Araiza’s civil defense, as well, because the facts of the case are essentially the same.
"Those videos are the best evidence in this case as to whether there was assault, whether there was intoxication,” he said.
Araiza, along with four other former SDSU football players, is accused in a civil lawsuit of raping a then-17-year-old girl at a house party near the SDSU campus on October 2021.
Police obtained the videos of the alleged assault during their criminal investigation. According to the warrants, the clips were from social media and cellphone videos.
The San Diego County District Attorney's office declined to press criminal charges in December, citing a lack of evidence. The video clips were part of the reason why.
In a transcript obtained by KPBS of the meeting between the DA’s office and the young woman, Deputy District Attorney Trisha Amador told the young woman that, in looking at the tapes, she could not “prove any forceable sexual assault happened.”
Police had argued that they could not release the clips under California law banning the distribution of child pornography.
The young woman's attorney said that because the clips were from the alleged attacker’s point of view and only showed her, they have no value for the defense.
"What he's never brought up before the court's attention is what these actual videos have," Philip J. Altieri, one of the attorneys for the young woman, told the court. "He's never talked about the substance of the videos, whether they show any individuals, i.e., the perpetrators, aside from my client, and the length of the videos."
"Well, we'd like to find that out," Semerdjian said.
He thinks the videos will show a lot more than that.
"I think they're going to show who's in the room. I think they're going to show that she's not intoxicated," Semerdjian said. "I think they're going to show that she orchestrated and was a willing participant in the sex act similar to what the district attorney found.”
San Diego Superior Court Judge Matthew Braner signaled that he might be sympathetic to the defense's side, asking Altieri if it's fair for the videos to be released if they cleared the defendant.
Altieri said the black letter of the law says that, outside of a criminal trial, those videos are considered child pornography and could not be released.
In court, Deputy City Attorney Jill Cristich, representing the San Diego Police Department, said police had 12 short clips ranging from five seconds to about a minute. This is the first time police have confirmed the exact number of clips in their possession.
The SDPD "has no dog in the fight and is not supporting or defending any side," Cristich said. "What PD is doing is complying with the civil code and subpoena procedures."
She went on to say that the videos have been available for both sides to view under a protective order. That's something Semerdjian said he did not know until Friday.
Braner ordered both sides to arrange a time with the City Attorney's Office to view them. He said he would issue a ruling in two weeks on whether they could be released and entered into evidence.
Even if the videos were released, they would still be under a protective order and not available to the public or the media.
