Prosecutors: Former Bills punt...

In August of last year, just days after being named the starting punter for the Buffalo Bills, rookie Matt Araiza was named in a civil lawsuit that claimed he and two other San Diego State football players had engaged in a gang rape of a 17-year-old female who was inebriated.

Although nothing was made public, San Diego Police had worked on the case for about ten months before referring it to the district attorney without making a prosecution referral. The Bills said that they were also aware of the event, looked into it, and still opted to hire Araiza.

However, the vivid charges in the civil complaint sparked a public uproar. It included an accusation that Araiza took the girl into a bedroom where "at least three other men" were waiting during a party on October 15, 2021, at a residence close to the SDSU campus.

"Once inside, Araiza threw [the girl] onto the bed face first," the lawsuit stated. "[The girl] went in and out of consciousness while" experiencing "the horrific gang rape." She "stumbled out of the room bloody and crying" after an hour and a half, according to the lawsuit, in part because "multiple piercings had ripped through the skin during the attack."

In a few of days, the Bills released Araiza, who had acquired the moniker "Punt God" thanks to his record-breaking NCAA career and an 82-yard punt in a preseason game.

Brandon Beane, general manager of Buffalo, stated, "We just think it's the best thing for everyone to move on from Matt and let him take care of this matter.

Despite prosecutors declaring on December 7, 2022, that no charges will be filed in the matter following their own 124-day inquiry, Araiza is still banned from football. However, the first statement had just a few specifics, much alone their justification or further defense arguments.

However, a 200-plus page transcript of a 100-minute conversation that was obtained by Yahoo Sports and in which a deputy district attorney provided the girl and her counsel with a lengthy explanation has now been accessible, providing a clearer picture of what police and prosecutors discovered.

What's more, the district attorney's office came to the conclusion that Araiza couldn't have led the girl into the purported gang rape since he had "left" the house at around 12:30 a.m., an hour before the alleged gang rape would have allegedly taken place, according to the evidence.

Trisha Amador, a deputy district attorney, told the girl that "he wasn't even at the party anymore." The sequence of events was later described by Amador as follows: "All I know is that at that point, suspect Araiza is gone from the party."

Prosecutors also informed the girl that it was difficult to establish, much less prosecute anybody, whether there was a gang rape that night as opposed to consensual sex with the other males based on video recordings of the occurrence in the bedroom.

Amador stated, "I simply cannot prove any forceful sexual assault based on what transpired, in looking at the films on the sex tape.

They caused authorities to draw conclusions that were very different from those made in the civil litigation. During the meeting, prosecutors sensitively and thoroughly explain everything to the girl and her representatives while leaving time for questions and pushback from the girl and her attorney.

Despite the civil complaint still being pending, Araiza, whose life has been paralyzed since being mentioned in it, thinks it will be sufficient for NFL teams to give him another look. He firmly denies any gang rape, knowing the girl was younger than California's consent age (18), knowing she was inebriated, and the other two players implicated in the lawsuit.

In addition, the complaint claimed that Araiza "knew or should have known" that the girl was just 17 and that she was "heavily intoxicated."

A few streets from the SDSU campus, the girl and some of her other high school pals learned that a party was being held at the residence. Through a rear gate, the gang entered.

She didn't appear to be intoxicated at the time, according to witness testimonies from the party, which included two of the girl's own friends with whom she arrived. According to several witnesses, the girl claimed to be 18 years old.

Prosecutors' reconstruction of the timeline indicated that this contact happened at 12:55 a.m., or around one hour after Araiza had left the home. One of the football players who was also implicated in the civil case was there when this event took place on a sofa in the living room. This event was captured on mobile phone video in parts. The video from the mobile phone, according to the prosecution, did not show any compelled behavior.

Ted Mansour, an investigator for the San Diego County district attorney's office, stated during the conference that there is nothing in the recordings that suggests you are yelling "stop," "this hurts," or anything similar.

Additionally, according to the prosecution, footage from the bedroom shows that she was not bleeding from any wounds and that none of her piercings were torn at the time. Amador said that due to the woman's actions in the films, no one could be tried for rape. Amador remarked, "I don't see any elements of force being used in the sexual encounter. The civil action is still active and has a lesser burden of proof than criminal accusations.