Half of the students on campus during an alleged Hillcrest assault will have graduated by the time Abe Satterfield and Cedric Everson walk into the courtroom for their trial next April.

Satterfield and Everson are charged with second-degree sexual abuse, and Satterfield is also charged with third-degree sexual abuse. They are accused of sexually assaulting a female student-athlete in a Hillcrest dorm room in October 2007.

Last week, 6th District Judge Marsha Beckelman allowed the cases to be delayed until April 2010. But she also ordered that any further delays must be approved by the chief judge.

When the trials begin, it will be almost two years since charges were officially filed and almost a year and a half since a Stolar Partnership report — provided by an independent law firm — declared the UI mishandled the investigation.

In those two years, university officials have revamped the school’s sexual-assault policy, terminated two vice presidents, and dealt with numerous civil lawsuits stemming from the investigation.

But when the criminal proceedings finally begin, students such as Alicia Jennings won’t know what the case is wholly about. UI freshman Jennings said she’s heard about the incident a few times since coming to campus but isn’t following any updates.

Even a senior such as Megan Ostermann has only a vague recollection of hearing about the alleged crime when it happened.

“It’s funny it’s been allowed to slip under the radar like that,” she said.

Though the case caused widespread criticism of the UI, local attorneys said this shouldn’t affect how the criminal case progresses.

“I think the court should chiefly be concerned with a fair trial,” said Thomas Farnsworth, an attorney who specializes in criminal defense work.

While delays of this length are not unusual, other recent high-profile cases have gone to trial within a year. Curtis Fry’s murder trial and Micah Matthews’ kidnapping and sexual abuse trial were both completed within 12 months.

Attorneys said orders like Beckelman’s are not unheard of either — sometimes because the judge wants to ensure that just one person will handle the scheduling. But it could also be “a judge’s way of saying the case is getting old,” Farnsworth said.