Editor’s Note: The Daily does not usually print the names of sexual assault survivors. However, in this case, Ashley Howard has granted the Daily permission to use her name in its coverage.

NEVADA — Two doctors testified Monday that bruises and symptoms displayed by Ashley Howard on Jan. 27, 2002 were consistent with a sexual assault.

Former ISU football players Royce Hooks, senior in exercise and sport science, and Brent Nash, junior in exercise and sport science, have been charged with sexually assaulting Howard during a party on Jan. 26, 2002. Hooks is currently on trial for second-degree sexual abuse.

Michael Miller, a Mary Greeley Medical Center emergency room doctor who performed a pelvic exam on Howard Jan. 27, 2002, testified the four areas of maroon and bluish colored bruises found on the cervix of Howard’s interior genitalia — the narrow outer end of the uterus —appeared to have been caused by four separate impacts to the area, instead of a single impact.

Linda Railsback, a physician and obstetrician from Des Moines, testified as an expert witness that the bruises “definitely” appeared to be the result of a fingernail. Hooks has admitted to digitally penetrating Howard on the night of the Jan. 26, 2002, but he says the act was consensual.

Miller said while abrasions and bruises on the vascular area of the cervix heal quickly, the area can also be bruised very easily.

Carla Chow, registered nurse at Mary Greeley Medical Center, described the internal bruises as caused by “trauma,” and said they were characteristic of those found in sexual assault survivors. Chow performed the sexual assault kit, an exam administered to collect evidence and examine the body, on the night of Jan. 27, 2002.

Chow testified that, aside from the interior bruising, no additional bruises or abrasions were found on Howard’s body. Although defense attorney Paul Rounds argued this represented she was not held down with enough force to cause bruises or abrasions, assistant Story County attorney Mary Howell Sirna argued the two men were located on her in such a position that she was unable to get up.

During the exam, Chow said, Howard told her there were no threats of violence or restraints against her by the two men.

Chow also said Howard’s demeanor was confident, yet soft-spoken, when she came in for the sexual assault kit. Chow told the court Howard seemed uncertain about telling her the two men who assaulted her were ISU football players — a fact she said she heard from her two brothers, Marcel and Aaron, both former football players. Aaron Howard was on the team in January 2002, while Marcel had finished his career after the Independence Bowl in December 2001.

“She felt the magnitude and the ramifications of this were a lot,” Chow said. “That was her hesitancy.”

Detective David Konopa of the Ames Police Department said Hooks was very cooperative during his voluntary questioning on Feb. 1, 2002.

Konopa said Hooks told him he stopped digitally penetrating Howard when he noticed blood on his hands and heard Howard say, “Stop, you’re hurting me.”

Hooks also told Konopa the act was performed for 20 to 30 seconds, Konopa testified.

He said Hooks told him Ashley Howard bumped into Nash at the crowded party, began talking, and they proceeded to go into the back bedroom.

Hooks told Konopa that he knew Howard was under the influence of alcohol, telling the detective he knew engaging in the sexual act with Howard was wrong.

During Thursday’s testimony, Howard’s friends, who attended the party with her that night, testified they did not see Howard talk, dance or interact with anyone other than her friends at the party.

Konopa said Hooks told him two other people at the party saw Howard talking to Nash and Hooks in the hallway, but both witnesses denied the story when questioned later.

The state concluded its testimony Monday. Defense witness testimony begins Tuesday at 9 a.m. After the state finished its case, with the jury sequestered, District Judge Timothy J. Finn rejected Rounds’ request for Hooks’ acquittal, saying there was “sufficient evidence” to make acquittal unwarranted.