Allegations arise about Franklin contacting alleged victim of assault at Vanderbilt
Defense attorneys for a former Vanderbilt football player charged with rape filed a scorched-earth motion Tuesday asking a judge to dismiss the case or reprimand prosecutors for destroying or failing to preserve evidence.
In a detailed, 24-page filing, the defense team for Brandon Vandenburg wrote that “crucial and material information to the defense of VANDENBURG was destroyed or not preserved.”
Vandenburg is one of four former players each charged with five counts of aggravated rape in what police said was an assault on a 21-year-old female student in Vandenburg's Gillette Hall dorm room June 23.
The defense said evidence provided through discovery included disks with empty file folders and video surveillance in which 55 percent of what was filmed on 14 campus cameras has been deleted.
The filing also includes a new allegation about interactions between the alleged victim and former football coach James Franklin and former director of performance enhancement Dwight Galt — both now at Penn State.
Referring to records, the attorneys said the victim was contacted by Franklin and Galt during a medical examination four days after the rape to explain “that they cared about her because she assisted them with recruiting.”
It went on to say that at some point, “Coach Franklin called her in for a private meeting and told her he wanted her to get 15 pretty girls together and form a team to assist with the recruiting even though he knew it was against the rules.
“He added that all the other colleges did it.”
Franklin, in a statement released late Tuesday, denied any wrongdoing.
“The allegations that I did something wrong are simply not true. I have cooperated fully with the authorities in this matter but, out of respect for the legal process, I am not able to comment any further.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.