An official trial date has been set for two former ISU football players accused of sexually assaulting a teenage girl. One of the defendants is trying to retain his attorney after running out of money.

ISU students Brent Nash, 21, 214 Gray Ave., and Royce Hooks, 21, 515 S 4th St. #27, are charged with second-degree sexual assault, according to court documents.

Nash’s trial is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. May 13. Hooks’ trial will start May 13 or June 10. Both trials will take place at the Story County Court House in Nevada.

Nash, junior in exercise and sport science, and Hooks, senior in exercise and sport science, have been accused of sexually assaulting ISU student Ashley Howard at an off-campus party Jan. 26, 2002. Howard was a high school student at the time of the incident.

Howard, freshman in anthropology, has previously given the Daily the right to release her name in conjunction with the case. She is the sister of former ISU football players Marcel and Aaron Howard.

In a complaint filed with the Ames Police Department, Howard said she was sexually assaulted when she went into a room to get her coat as she was leaving a party at 4701 Steinbeck St.

Hooks and Nash were suspended from the ISU football team by head coach Dan McCarney last February, following their arrests.

Nash is being represented by defense attorney Joseph Cahill. Nash declined to comment Monday.

Until recent developments in the case, Hooks has been represented by defense attorney John Martens.

According to court documents, Hooks was deemed indigent, and therefore ruled eligible for court-appointed counsel. Hooks requested that Martens be appointed to him at public expense, due to his familiarity with the case.

The court denied Hooks’ request, stating, “If a defendant wants a court-appointed attorney, the court is the entity who determines who is appointed,” according to documents.

Martens and Hooks argued it would “be a substantial hardship and very detrimental to the right of this defendant to a vigorous and adequate defense to now assign this case to the public defender’s office,” according to court documents.

They also said, “the workload and pressure placed upon the public defender’s office by their present caseload may make it difficult to allocate sufficient time to the defense of this case.”

The public defender refuted these comments, stating it is busy, but strongly disputes the statement that their present caseload would make it difficult for them to adequately defend this case.

Paul Rounds, head of the Nevada public defender’s office, said it is not the responsibility of the public defender to act as an insurer for criminal defense lawyers.

He said he believes a lawyer who agrees to undertake representation of a criminal defendant is obligated to remain in that representation “even if the money runs out.”

If the attorney’s retainer is not sufficient to provide an adequate defense, it should not be the responsibility of the taxpayers of the state to pay a private attorney who may have taken too small a retainer, Rounds said.

Rounds declined to comment specifically on the case, due to the possibility of being assigned to the case.

“It’s a very sensitive matter, and things haven’t been resolved,” Rounds said.

However, he did say he believes he will receive notice, regarding Hooks’ counsel decision, within a couple of days, and he will act accordingly.

Martens also declined to comment on the recent transactions associated with the case.

According to court documents, Hooks has until Wednesday to file an application for appointment of counsel with the clerk’s office. If he chooses appointed counsel, Martens said he will file a withdrawal from the case and a public defender will have to be appointed.

If Hooks wishes to retain Martens’ defense, it must be done with private funds instead of at public expense.

If found guilty, Nash and Hooks could each face a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison under Iowa law.