Winston Hearing Transcript: The Newlin Testimony

Jameis Winston’s side called just one witness at his December 2014 CoC Hearing, Jason Newlin– his testimony raised plenty of questions.

On December 2-3, 2014, Florida State University conducted a Code of Conduct Hearing in which Jameis Winston faced four potential violations of the FSU Student Code of Conduct. All four allegations stemmed from a December 7, 2012 incident in which Erica Kinsman alleged that Winston raped her.

The subsequent decision ruled that neither story was more believable than the other, and that Justice Major Harding — the retired state supreme court justice that both legal teams agreed upon to preside over the hearing — could not find Winston guilty of any of the violations.

Quickly, the national media seized upon the ruling, more evidence that — as Kinsman’s attorney Baine Kerr put it — “the fix was in.”

Here, however, attached at the bottom of this article, is the full transcript from the two-day Code of Conduct hearing.

The contents tell a vastly different story than the narrative put forth by members of the national media and the Kinsman legal team.

After Kinsman presents her case and calls her witnesses over the course of the hearing’s first day, Jameis Winston — referred to in the transcript as “respondent” — calls just a single witness on day two, State Attorney investigator Jason Newlin, before resting.

In fact, Winston’s attorney, David Cornwell, states his intention to stop at Newlin to FSU General Counsel Carolyn Egan before the SA Investigator’s testimony even begins:

Newlin then proceeds to walk Harding (and the others present at the hearing) through the investigation he conducted at the end of 2013.

He begins by mentioning that his first contact was with Kinsman’s first attorney, her aunt Patricia Carroll, who told him all contact with Kinsman — known in the transcripts as “complainant” — must filter through Carroll.

Newlin then describes the process of setting up witness interviews, pursuing leads, and conducting the actual investigation.

Witness four is Monique Kessler, five is Marcus Jordan– both were with Kinsman at the bar on the night of the alleged incident.

In both cases, as Newlin testifies, Carroll makes a concerted effort to get out in front of the investigation and contact witnesses before their interviews with the State Attorney’s Office.

Winston’s legal team would be vilified if anything like this had shown up in the testimony– nobody even bothered to report it from Kinsman’s side.

Newlin continues his testimony by recounting portions of the witness interviews before getting to the interview that was conducted with Kinsman herself.

In lieu of making Kinsman give another exhaustive description of the night in question, Newlin, along with Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman, focused more on the inconsistencies and contradictions in Kinsman’s account.

Make of this what you will, but to somebody who has been asked to investigate this case — or to rule on it — it’s tough to characterize any of this as anything other than dishonest. Patently dishonest.

Kinsman tries repeatedly not to give up the identity of her then-boyfriend, Kent State WR Jamal Roberts.

[And it’s worth noting that Roberts was on the witness list for this hearing, but for Winston— not for Kinsman.]

At the very least, this is evidence that Kinsman was not being cooperative with the investigation, forthright with investigators or even forthright with her own attorney. Taking the sensationalism out of this case and looking at it through the lens of an attorney or a judge– this would be enough to cast some legitimate doubt on Kinsman’s credibility.

After discussing some of the other leads Newlin pursued in the State Attorney’s investigation — including Carroll’s attempted distortion of Kessler’s testimony) — Winston (the complainant and respondent conducted their own cross-examinations with the assistance of their attorneys) asks Newlin what his investigation concluded.

After a couple of other small clarifications Winston’s side rested.

Kinsman then cross-examined Newlin, attempting to poke holes in his story, but in the process she may have poked more holes in her own narrative.

Here’s Kinsman alleging she never told Newlin she had been drugged:

Kinsman is now alleging, via an upcoming documentary, that Winson pretended to be her boyfriend and gave her a drugged shot on that night.

And later in her cross-examination, Kinsman wades into the issue of that second set of DNA:

Here Kinsman refers to Roberts as her boyfriend twice and attempts downplay the significance of the second set of DNA. And this exchange — on its own — does a decent enough job of that.

But keep in mind Harding, as he’s considering this, is also aware of the fact that Winston — and not Kinsman — intended to call Roberts as his witness should the need arise.

As well as the fact that Kinsman’s own father — a man she used largely as a character witness — was unaware of their relationship in the first place:

None of this got much play in the national media though. It didn’t make headlines. It went almost completely unreported. Here was the man who led the State Attorney’s investigation into the matter expounding upon the details of that investigation and providing actual examples of problems with Kinsman’s credibility and it was largely ignored in favor of the more salacious detail that Winston didn’t take questions.

The hearing ends with Kerr and Cornwell splitting hairs over whether Winston is “refusing to answer questions” or “invoking the rule.”

This was widely reported upon by the media– used almost as evidence of Winston’s guilt.

What was not widely reported upon was this statement by Winston at the outset of the hearing:

That is not an admission of guilt– it’s a sound legal strategy.

Kinsman and her team were under no obligation to tell the truth here. What punitive action did any of them face from this hearing or from FSU if they perjure themselves or act unethically? None. She’s not a student at Florida State anymore. She’d already threatened FSU with a lawsuit by the point of the hearing (she’s now filed it). She had nothing to lose.

Winston had everything to lose.

It’s easy to paint that negatively. But ask any attorney about what they would do in the same situation. Ask Baine Kerr and John Clune– even they would invoke their client’s right not to answer questions.

And that alone — no matter how it looks — does not undo the damage Jason Newlin’s testimony did to Kinsman’s credibility.

Harding ultimately cites those credibility concerns in his decision not to find Winston guilty of any of the violations leveled against him.

Those concerns are not unfounded.