RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA — September 25, 2026. Former NC State sports medicine director Robert Murphy Jr. faces 32 criminal charges following his arrest in Florida, as prosecutors investigate allegations involving former college athletes.
Robert Michael Murphy Jr., a former North Carolina State University athletic trainer and sports medicine director, has been arrested in Florida after a North Carolina grand jury issued indictments alleging sexual misconduct involving former male student-athletes.
The criminal case follows several years of civil litigation and a law enforcement investigation into allegations concerning medical treatment provided during Murphy's employment at the university.
According to prosecutors and court records described in contemporary news reports, Murphy faces nine felony counts involving sexual contact under the pretext of medical treatment and 23 misdemeanor counts of sexual battery. The charges concern allegations involving 14 former athletes.
Murphy's attorneys deny wrongdoing and have challenged the prosecution's decision to bring the case.
The allegations have not been proven in court. Murphy is presumed innocent unless and until prosecutors establish guilt through the judicial process.
The case has also renewed questions about the safeguards available to college athletes receiving medical treatment and the responsibilities of universities when misconduct is reported.
What Criminal Charges Does Robert Murphy Face?
A Wake County grand jury returned indictments against Murphy on September 14, 2026.
The charges include nine felony counts relating to alleged sexual contact under the pretext of medical treatment and 23 misdemeanor counts of sexual battery.
The indictments concern allegations involving 14 individuals and conduct prosecutors say occurred between October 2016 and the fall of 2021.
North Carolina law includes specific criminal provisions addressing sexual contact or penetration allegedly induced through representations that such conduct is medically necessary or beneficial.
The felony charges concern allegations that Murphy used the context of medical treatment to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.
The misdemeanor counts concern separate allegations of sexual battery.
An indictment is a formal criminal accusation. It indicates that a grand jury found sufficient grounds for charges to proceed, but it is not a determination of guilt.
The prosecution must establish the elements of each charge under the applicable legal standard.
Murphy has not been convicted in connection with these charges.
Arrest in Florida and Extradition to North Carolina
Authorities arrested Murphy in Ocala, Florida, on the evening of Wednesday, September 23.
He was subsequently held in Marion County on warrants originating in North Carolina.
The arrest followed the September 14 indictments, which initially remained sealed while authorities sought to locate and apprehend him.
Murphy appeared before a Florida judge on September 24 and waived extradition.
That decision allows the process of transferring him to North Carolina to proceed without a contested extradition hearing in Florida.
However, waiving extradition does not constitute an admission of guilt or a waiver of his right to contest the criminal charges.
Once returned to North Carolina, Murphy will face the applicable criminal court procedures, including opportunities to challenge the prosecution's allegations and evidence.
As of September 25, the precise timetable for his transfer and subsequent North Carolina court appearances had not been confirmed in the reporting reviewed for this article.
Further procedural developments will depend on court scheduling and the actions of the parties.
The Defense Denies the Allegations
Murphy's attorneys, Jared Hammett and Seth Blum, have rejected the allegations against their client.
Following the announcement of the criminal charges, they criticised the decision to prosecute and referred to an earlier university police investigation that concluded without criminal charges being filed in 2022.
The defense maintains that Murphy will ultimately be cleared.
Those statements are the defense's position and do not establish the outcome of the current criminal proceedings.
Equally, the existence of the new indictments does not establish that the alleged conduct occurred.
The earlier investigation and the current prosecution are separate stages in the case. The decision not to bring criminal charges in 2022 does not, by itself, determine the legal merits of evidence examined during the subsequent investigation.
Both the prosecution and defense will have opportunities to present their respective positions through the judicial process.
How the Investigation Developed
Murphy worked at NC State between 2012 and 2022, serving as the university's director of sports medicine.
He was suspended in January 2022 and resigned later that year.
The allegations became public after former NC State soccer player Benjamin Locke reported alleged misconduct and pursued legal action.
Locke has publicly identified himself and discussed his allegations. Other former athletes involved in the civil litigation have generally sought to protect their identities.
Additional individuals subsequently came forward with allegations involving medical treatment or related procedures.
By early 2026, a state civil lawsuit involved 31 former athletes.
The criminal investigation developed separately. Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman said the current indictments concern 14 people interviewed by law enforcement.
Those numbers should not be combined or treated as interchangeable.
The 14 individuals associated with the criminal charges and the larger group involved in civil litigation represent different legal proceedings with different requirements.
The criminal case will focus on the specific allegations and evidence relevant to the filed charges.
Why the Civil Lawsuits Are Separate
The allegations have generated litigation in both federal and state courts.
Civil lawsuits brought by former athletes have included allegations against Murphy and claims concerning the oversight responsibilities of university officials.
In June 2026, a judge dismissed a state lawsuit involving 31 athletes, citing procedural and jurisdictional issues, including limitation periods affecting certain claims.
The athletes' attorneys appealed that dismissal.
The ruling should not be characterised as a criminal acquittal or a judicial determination resolving every factual allegation.
Civil litigation and criminal prosecution have different legal purposes, procedures and standards of proof.
Civil proceedings can address questions such as institutional responsibility and potential financial remedies.
Criminal proceedings determine whether prosecutors can prove that a defendant committed the offences charged.
The ongoing criminal prosecution therefore represents a separate legal process rather than a continuation of the dismissed civil case.
NC State Responds to the Criminal Charges
NC State has acknowledged the charges and said it intends to cooperate with law enforcement.
In its public response, the university emphasised that student and student-athlete safety is a priority and that sexual misconduct is unacceptable.
University officials have declined to provide extensive additional commentary while the criminal proceedings remain active.
The university's statement confirms its publicly expressed position, but it does not establish what institutional changes, if any, have been implemented as a result of the allegations.
Any assessment of NC State's specific safeguarding procedures would require verified information about its current policies, reporting systems and independent oversight arrangements.
The criminal case has nevertheless brought renewed attention to the responsibilities of university athletic departments.
College athletes may rely on medical personnel for injury assessments, treatment decisions and clearance to return to competition.
That relationship creates circumstances in which clear professional boundaries, informed consent and accessible reporting procedures are especially important.
What Protections Should College Athletes Have?
The case raises broader questions about how universities can protect athletes during medical examinations and treatment.
Sports medicine departments regularly handle sensitive health information and conduct examinations that may involve physical contact.
Athletes should receive clear explanations of the purpose of examinations, the treatment being proposed and their ability to raise concerns.
Appropriate safeguarding practices can include providing access to an additional medical professional or chaperone during sensitive examinations.
Institutions can also establish reporting channels outside the immediate athletic department, reducing the possibility that an athlete must report concerns to someone who directly supervises the individual involved.
Confidentiality is another important consideration.
Athletes who report potential misconduct may be concerned about their privacy, their relationships with coaches or their continued participation in college sports.
Reporting procedures should therefore explain how complaints are handled, what information may need to be shared and what protections are available against retaliation.
Universities can also review training requirements, professional supervision and procedures for investigating allegations.
These measures are general safeguarding considerations. Their inclusion does not imply that any particular safeguard was absent at NC State or that the allegations against Murphy have been established.
The Challenges of Reporting Alleged Misconduct
The case has also prompted discussion about barriers that may discourage athletes from reporting inappropriate conduct.
Those barriers can be particularly complicated when the person accused occupies a trusted medical position.
An athlete receiving treatment may assume that unfamiliar procedures are clinically appropriate, especially when they are recommended by someone responsible for the athlete's recovery.
Professional authority can make it difficult to question treatment or distinguish appropriate clinical contact from conduct that may warrant further examination.
Reporting concerns can also involve uncertainty about confidentiality and the consequences of making an allegation.
The North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault has highlighted the stigma and limited public awareness that can affect men who report sexual misconduct.
These concerns reinforce the importance of accessible support services and investigative procedures that allow individuals to report allegations without assuming their truth or prejudging the accused.
A fair process must protect the rights and dignity of complainants while preserving the defendant's presumption of innocence and right to contest the charges.
What Happens Next in the Criminal Case?
Murphy's arrest and decision to waive extradition are important procedural developments, but the prosecution remains at an early stage.
The next significant steps are expected to involve his transfer to North Carolina and further court proceedings.
The defense will have the opportunity to challenge the allegations, examine the prosecution's evidence and raise relevant legal arguments.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, must establish the elements of the charged offences through admissible evidence.
The outcome cannot be determined from the indictments, the civil allegations or public statements made by either side.
For the university and college athletics more broadly, the case highlights questions about athlete welfare, medical professionalism and the procedures institutions use when serious allegations arise.
For the courts, the immediate responsibility is to assess the specific criminal charges through a fair judicial process.
As the proceedings continue, the distinction between allegations, established facts and eventual judicial findings will remain essential to accurate reporting.