CLEMSON, SC – This past June, a South Carolina appeals court overturned a defamation case that was won by a unanimous jury verdict in 2022 stemming from a false rape allegation lodged against a Clemson University student in 2015, with the appeals court justifying their decision in part by claiming the college campus had already litigated the matter with their own tribunal.
The story of Andrew Pampu is as cautionary as it is alarming, insofar that consensual encounters between the sexes on college campuses can lead to unfathomable outcomes and that a lie will often spread faster than the truth.
Back in October 2015, Pampu was at a off-campus frat party where he encountered a fellow student named Erin Wingo, where Wingo was apparently aggressive in wanting to have sex with Pampu as she was aggravated that her on-again/off-again boyfriend, Colin Gahagan, wasn’t paying attention to her.
Following the consensual encounter, Wingo had later texted Pampu several times asking to keep their encounter secret as she wanted to patch things up Gahagan.
However, things spiraled out of control after Wingo began telling friends and even Gahagan about the encounter with Pampu, characterizing the matter as being one she couldn’t remember because she had too much to drink.
In turn, Gahagan told Wingo that what she described was sexual assault since she couldn’t remember the evening.
Two weeks later, Wingo and Gahagan reported the encounter to Clemson University, resulting in a tribunal conducted by Clemson University’s Office of Community and Ethical Standards that found Pampu guilty in February 2016.
Pampu was subsequently suspended from Clemson University for six months and barred from campus housing, and when he tried to appeal the decision, the campus president added an additional year to his suspension.
In the months following the initial 2015 complaint but prior to the 2016 ruling by Clemson’s OCES, Gahagan was given de facto license to call Pampu a rapist all across the college campus.
But as irony would have it, it would be Gahagan who would ultimately provide critical evidence exonerating Pampu in both the court of public opinion and the bonafide courts.
In January of 2017, Gahagan texted Pampu admitting that he conspired with Wingo during the OCES hearings held at the university to defame him, further admitting that he deleted text messages on Wingo’s phone that proved Pampu’s innocence.
In response, Pampu filed a lawsuit against Gahagan, Wingo, and Wingo’s father - who was also apparently in on the conspiracy - in June of 2017.
After nearly five years, the case went to trial with a jury awarding Pampu $3 million in damages for the civil conspiracy claim and $2.3 million for defamation in March of 2022.
Despite Gahagan admitting to the conspiracy via text message to Pampu and the jury finding sufficient evidence of defamation and conspiracy, the three appealed the decision, asking a circuit court for either a new ruling or a new trial for the conspiracy and defamation claims.
In response, the circuit court agreed that the conspiracy claim could be relitigated but denied the motion to rehear the defamation case.
Yet, the South Carolina Appeals Court took things a step further in their June 11th ruling in response to the three defendants' appeal, overturning both the conspiracy and defamation verdicts.
In the appeals court’s opinion, Pampu’s conspiracy and defamation lawsuit against the trio was tantamount to an act known as “collateral estoppel,” a legal doctrine which prevents someone from pursuing a new lawsuit on a matter that has already been adjudicated by a previous court.
The reasoning behind the court claiming collateral estoppel with regard to Pampu’s lawsuit was that the appeals court claimed the matter had already been litigated by Clemson University.
The June 11th ruling from the appeals court reads, “[P]ursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Pampu is bound by Clemson's findings that Ms. Wingo did not have the capacity to consent and Pampu should have known that and (2) these findings establish that the alleged defamatory statements made by Respondents-Appellants were true and, therefore, defeat Pampu's defamation claim.”
In short, because Pampu was ambushed with a false rape allegation supported by an admitted conspiracy which led to Clemson University’s findings during the OCES process, the appeals court is claiming Pampu can’t sue since the court observes a school's disciplinary board as some sort of legitimate court of law and that referring to Pampu as a rapist is “true” in light of Clemson University’s 2017 decision.
An attorney representing Pampu, Kimberly Lau, was flabbergasted by the appeals court’s decision, saying the ruling was wrought with shoddy interpretation of legal doctrine and rewards “a flawed university proceeding.”
“This ruling dangerously distorts the law and undermines the role of juries. Andrew Pampu was defamed, denied due process, and suspended from Clemson based on false testimony,” Lau said in response to the ruling.
He added, “A jury heard all the facts and unanimously ruled in his favor. That justice has now been upended by a misapplied legal doctrine that values a flawed university proceeding over a full and fair trial.”
Pampu and his legal team intend to continue their fight, with the former university student saying of the ruling, “I will continue to stand up for what is right, not only for myself, but for anyone who finds themselves fighting to clear their name and move forward with their life.”
The story of Andrew Pampu is as cautionary as it is alarming, insofar that consensual encounters between the sexes on college campuses can lead to unfathomable outcomes and that a lie will often spread faster than the truth.
Back in October 2015, Pampu was at a off-campus frat party where he encountered a fellow student named Erin Wingo, where Wingo was apparently aggressive in wanting to have sex with Pampu as she was aggravated that her on-again/off-again boyfriend, Colin Gahagan, wasn’t paying attention to her.
Following the consensual encounter, Wingo had later texted Pampu several times asking to keep their encounter secret as she wanted to patch things up Gahagan.
However, things spiraled out of control after Wingo began telling friends and even Gahagan about the encounter with Pampu, characterizing the matter as being one she couldn’t remember because she had too much to drink.
In turn, Gahagan told Wingo that what she described was sexual assault since she couldn’t remember the evening.
Two weeks later, Wingo and Gahagan reported the encounter to Clemson University, resulting in a tribunal conducted by Clemson University’s Office of Community and Ethical Standards that found Pampu guilty in February 2016.
Pampu was subsequently suspended from Clemson University for six months and barred from campus housing, and when he tried to appeal the decision, the campus president added an additional year to his suspension.
In the months following the initial 2015 complaint but prior to the 2016 ruling by Clemson’s OCES, Gahagan was given de facto license to call Pampu a rapist all across the college campus.
But as irony would have it, it would be Gahagan who would ultimately provide critical evidence exonerating Pampu in both the court of public opinion and the bonafide courts.
In January of 2017, Gahagan texted Pampu admitting that he conspired with Wingo during the OCES hearings held at the university to defame him, further admitting that he deleted text messages on Wingo’s phone that proved Pampu’s innocence.
In response, Pampu filed a lawsuit against Gahagan, Wingo, and Wingo’s father - who was also apparently in on the conspiracy - in June of 2017.
After nearly five years, the case went to trial with a jury awarding Pampu $3 million in damages for the civil conspiracy claim and $2.3 million for defamation in March of 2022.
Despite Gahagan admitting to the conspiracy via text message to Pampu and the jury finding sufficient evidence of defamation and conspiracy, the three appealed the decision, asking a circuit court for either a new ruling or a new trial for the conspiracy and defamation claims.
In response, the circuit court agreed that the conspiracy claim could be relitigated but denied the motion to rehear the defamation case.
Yet, the South Carolina Appeals Court took things a step further in their June 11th ruling in response to the three defendants' appeal, overturning both the conspiracy and defamation verdicts.
In the appeals court’s opinion, Pampu’s conspiracy and defamation lawsuit against the trio was tantamount to an act known as “collateral estoppel,” a legal doctrine which prevents someone from pursuing a new lawsuit on a matter that has already been adjudicated by a previous court.
The reasoning behind the court claiming collateral estoppel with regard to Pampu’s lawsuit was that the appeals court claimed the matter had already been litigated by Clemson University.
The June 11th ruling from the appeals court reads, “[P]ursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Pampu is bound by Clemson's findings that Ms. Wingo did not have the capacity to consent and Pampu should have known that and (2) these findings establish that the alleged defamatory statements made by Respondents-Appellants were true and, therefore, defeat Pampu's defamation claim.”
In short, because Pampu was ambushed with a false rape allegation supported by an admitted conspiracy which led to Clemson University’s findings during the OCES process, the appeals court is claiming Pampu can’t sue since the court observes a school's disciplinary board as some sort of legitimate court of law and that referring to Pampu as a rapist is “true” in light of Clemson University’s 2017 decision.
An attorney representing Pampu, Kimberly Lau, was flabbergasted by the appeals court’s decision, saying the ruling was wrought with shoddy interpretation of legal doctrine and rewards “a flawed university proceeding.”
“This ruling dangerously distorts the law and undermines the role of juries. Andrew Pampu was defamed, denied due process, and suspended from Clemson based on false testimony,” Lau said in response to the ruling.
He added, “A jury heard all the facts and unanimously ruled in his favor. That justice has now been upended by a misapplied legal doctrine that values a flawed university proceeding over a full and fair trial.”
Pampu and his legal team intend to continue their fight, with the former university student saying of the ruling, “I will continue to stand up for what is right, not only for myself, but for anyone who finds themselves fighting to clear their name and move forward with their life.”
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments
2025-07-31T18:28-0400 | Comment by: arthur
I hope he not only wins, but gets a massive award from a new jury for having to wait so long for this. What utter crap.
2025-08-03T18:31-0400 | Comment by: Dori
What Pompu went through is absolutely ridiculous, especially since there was evidence of a conspiracy against him. I hope he continues his fight and that he is awarded millions and comes to own the financial lives & homes of those who conspired against him. And men, stop being so foolish with those aggressive females. A female will do this kind of thing to get back at a male. Wise up. Stay away from trash.