Brock Turner, 22, was convicted in March a year ago of sexually assaulting the woman after they drank heavily at a fraternity party at the university campus in California in January 2015. According to NBC, his lawyers argued that his trial had been "a detailed and lengthy set of lies".
They hope a new trial will also help overturn his mandatory lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender. On the off chance that Turner was sentenced a moment time, there would be calls for him to serve state jail time, The Mercury News announced.
Turner's lawyers point out that the victim - referred to as Emily Doe in the trial - was found instead in an open area near a basketball court.
As Rolling Stone details, the element of the appeal centering on the assault taking place behind a dumpster argues that the description suggests Turner was trying to hide his activities.
The main key to Turner's request for a new trial is the statement the prosecutor was said to have made repeatedly made during trial, saying the assault occurred "behind the dumpster".
"Brock Turner received a fair trial and was justly convicted", Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said late Friday.
That characterisation of the crime, "implied an intent on the appellant's part to shield and sequester his activities" and "implied moral depravity, callousness and culpability on the appellant's part because of the inherent connotations of filth, garbage, detritus and criminal activity frequently associated with dumpsters", the document reportedly states.
Turner, who was a decorated swimmer at Stanford at the time, pleaded not guilty. A Standford student testified that on the night of the attack in January 2015 he found Turner behind a dumpster lying on top of the partially clothed victim, who police later determined was unconscious.
A legal adviser for Turner, John Tompkins, doesn't deny the event happened, but insists it wasn't criminal.
Turner was released after three months in prison.
"It happened, but it was nowhere close to crime", he said. "It's not appropriate for the court of appeals to step in and retry those facts".