A day after former football player Scott Paxson left his Nittany Apartments residence in handcuffs, he proclaimed his innocence in connection with the sexual assault charges, calling his arrest "very embarrassing," and saying he is "terrified" of the potential damage to his career.

Paxson was arrested Tuesday and now faces criminal charges levied by the state.

Penn State Judicial Affairs and Paxson confirmed yesterday that Paxson was given two university hearings -- and found responsible in the first -- for the December 2004 incident, in which a former Penn State student said he had vaginal intercourse with her and finger penetrated her without consent.

Judicial Affairs deals only with issues that violate the university's code of conduct and is completely separate from the Pennsylvania justice system that is currently prosecuting Paxson.

In an e-mail message to The Daily Collegian, Paxson explained the situation -- how he appealed the first university hearing's verdict because of certain factors regarding how the hearing was conducted, such as who was allowed to testify and that the hearing wasn't recorded.

"I just didn't feel it was an impartial hearing," Paxson wrote.

Although Paxson was found responsible in the first hearing in April 2005, the appeals hearing reversed the charge and found him not responsible on all counts in June 2005.

Paxson wrote that his first hearing found him responsible for engaging in nonconsensual finger penetration but did not find him responsible for nonconsensual vaginal intercourse. His second hearing cleared him of both, he confirmed.

Despite the cleared charge from the university, controversy has been brewing about the politics of the situation -- in short, the reason Paxson was convicted and then cleared.

Judicial Affairs Director Joe Puzycki said Paxson was subject to the same process as other students who are charged through his office.

"This kid did not get preferential treatment," Puzycki said. "The process is the same for every student at the university whether you're an athlete or not."

Puzycki confirmed that a Penn State hearing board made up of students and faculty originally found Paxson responsible. However, upon Paxson's letter of appeal to Judicial Affairs, he was granted an appeal hearing by Penn State Student Activities Director Vicky Triponey on the grounds of "procedural error."

Puzycki would not elaborate on what exactly that meant for Paxson's case. Triponey did not return phone calls made by the Daily Collegian by press time yesterday.

Now, Paxson is being criminally prosecuted by Centre County Assistant District Attorney Lance Marshall, a move Paxson wrote is a "change of heart."

"I thought this was behind me. I was cleared at school and [former acting District Attorney] Mark Smith saw the charges and evidence and didn't feel a crime was committed," he wrote.

But current District Attorney Michael Madeira said Wednesday that he was under the impression that when the incident was reported, his office had decided to deal with the charges at a later date.

The victim, a former student who went to the hospital within hours of the alleged incident on Dec. 15, 2004, testified at both hearings, Puzycki said.

Paxson is currently enrolled at Penn State but has exhausted his football eligibility. He waived his right to privacy through Judicial Affairs Tuesday night, opening up the details of his hearing and appeal.

According to Judicial Affairs bylaws, for Paxson to be eligible for an appeal, he must have been facing deferred expulsion or a worse punishment from the university. Deferred expulsion, Puzycki said, is a sanction whereby Judicial Affairs limits the extracurricular participation of a student but still allows him or her to stay enrolled and attend classes.

In the time between his first and second hearings, Paxson was not suspended from the football team because the process of appeal had not been exhausted, Puzycki said.

"There were no sanctions put in place because the process was still going," he said.

However, Paxson wrote that it was agreed prior to the first hearing that he would stay away from the football facilities until the situation was resolved. He did not specify who made that decision but wrote that he returned after the second hearing. He was never issued an official penalty from the team.

Paxson also wrote that no National Football League teams have contacted him about the incident and declined to comment on whether Joe Paterno knew about the charges, saying only that the athletic department has been kept informed of the progress of the case.