More Kobe News... (yay!)

[Franklinnoble]

A New Witness

Prosecutors plan to subpoena a woman who could alter the course of the Kobe Bryant case





By Jeff Benedict

Shaquille O'Neal may have to take the stand in the Kobe Bryant case. Sam Forencich/NBAE/Getty Images

The past five weeks could not have gone much worse for the team prosecuting the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. A court clerk mistakenly released to the media transcripts of a closed hearing involving the accuser's sexual history, and the court later posted on its website a sealed document that revealed the accuser's last name, prompting an apology from trial judge Terry Ruckriegle. Lead prosecutor Mark Hurlbert withdrew from the case. Ruckriegle ruled that certain information about the accuser's sexual history was admissible and also released a transcript revealing that Bryant's accuser received more than $17,000 from a victim-compensation fund -- which the defense spun to suggest that she had a financial motive to lie. Now, however, an aggressive move by prosecutors may shift the momentum, and even drag Shaquille O'Neal into court as a witness.

SI has learned that prosecutors plan to subpoena a 22-year-old Florida waitress who claims she was the object of unwanted sexual advances by Bryant. Prosecutors have notified Bryant's lawyers that the woman may be called as a witness at the trial, set to begin on Aug. 27 in Eagle, Colo. Her testimony might be used by the prosecution to show that aggressive sexual actions are part of Bryant's pattern of behavior. (Pamela Mackey, Bryant's lead attorney, did not respond to SI's efforts to reach her.)

According to the Florida woman and others familiar with her allegation, she was among the employees of Orlando's Planet Hollywood restaurant who worked at a private party at O'Neal's home on Thanksgiving 2002. The Lakers were in Orlando to play the Magic, and O'Neal, who owns a 26,000-square-foot house in the city's Isleworth neighborhood, hosted a team dinner.

The woman alleges that Bryant approached her and asked for her cellphone number, which she provided. Later, Bryant asked her to get him a soft drink and bring it to him outside, which she did in the presence of another man. Bryant then cornered her and groped her private parts. She says Bryant laughed as she pushed him away, and that she retreated inside O'Neal's home and called her mother. The next day, the woman says, she received a call from a man who said he was an associate of Bryant's, apologizing for Bryant's behavior.

The woman did not initially report any of this to the police. But after Bryant was charged on July 18, 2003, she saw the news conference at which he said of his accuser, "I didn't force her to do anything against her will. I am innocent." This prompted the Florida woman to call Colorado prosecutors and report her alleged encounter with Bryant. After hearing her story, according to sources in the Los Angeles D.A.'s office, investigators from L.A. teamed with Eagle prosecutors and contacted O'Neal through his agent, Perry Rogers, and told him that O'Neal could become a witness in Bryant's case. Within hours the investigators heard from David Chesnoff, a criminal defense lawyer who said he represented O'Neal. Though the investigators assured him that his client was not a suspect, Chesnoff said O'Neal would not speak with them. O'Neal could, however, be called to testify in Colorado. (Chesnoff and Rogers told SI that they could not discuss anything related to their client.)

A subpoena was required for the Florida woman because she had decided that she did not want to be a witness in a case in which the accuser has been subjected to threats and smears. Her participation is significant, though, because it could cause Bryant's lawyers to think twice before calling their client to the stand. Under Colorado rules of evidence, the Florida woman can be called as a rebuttal witness by the prosecution, now led by Ingrid Bakke and Dana Easter -- the career sex-crime prosecutors who took over for Hurlbert. John Wolfe, a Seattle lawyer who has represented a dozen pro athletes in sexual assault cases, says it leaves Bryant and his lawyers with a "Hobson's choice: If he doesn't testify, he loses the ability to tell the jury that it was consensual sex. If he does testify, he opens the door for another accuser to allege nonconsensual sexual activity."

If the Florida woman does testify, it will be up to the jurors to decide if they see meaningful similarities between Bryant's alleged behavior in Florida and Colorado. According to documents viewed by SI, the accuser in Colorado told police that the first nonconsensual act by Bryant was the groping of her private parts. When she resisted and tried to flee, according to her statement, Bryant allegedly restrained her and blocked the door to his room.

Speaking about Bryant's case last week on Z100 radio in Portland, O'Neal said his former teammate would need a jury of rappers -- "Ludacris, Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg" -- to get off. Few observers see the case as that one-sided, but Bakke and Easter may have succeeded in putting new obstacles in Bryant's path to freedom.

Issue date: August 9, 2004

[albionmoonlight]

Shaq has a 26,000 sq. ft. house in Orlando. Even though he has an 18 bedroom house in LA.

Wow.

[yabanci]

Even if the case ever goes to trial, this "evidence" will never be admissible. The prosecutors know that, but they have to come out with something sensational after it was confirmed that the accuser showed up for her rape exam with another man's cum sticking between her legs.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Shaq has a 26,000 sq. ft. house in Orlando. Even though he has an 18 bedroom house in LA.

Wow.

That is roughly 15 times bigger than my house. What the hell do you do with that sort of space?

[Huckleberry]

yabanci -

Are you familiar with the Colorado rules of evidence referenced in the article?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

That is roughly 15 times bigger than my house. What the hell do you do with that sort of space?

You buy stuff to put in it with the $20+M a year you're making.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

yabanci -

Are you familiar with the Colorado rules of evidence referenced in the article?

yes, but the prosecutors aren't going to get around Colorado's state law counterparts of Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b), 403, and 608(b).

[Huckleberry]

Dude, you're going to have to explain. I was asking because I'm not familiar and I want to know why is the given explanation incorrect if it is incorrect.

[heybrad]

The Z100 interview he talks about was not real. Lets hope he checked his other sources better than that one. Of course, this article is coming from the author of the book, "OUT OF BOUNDS: INSIDE THE NBA'S CULTURE OF RAPE, ASSAULT, AND DRUG USE" so it makes you wonder on his bias.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Dude, you're going to have to explain. I was asking because I'm not familiar and I want to know why is the given explanation incorrect if it is incorrect.

The article is correct that the rules of evidence permit someone to be called as a rebuttal witness, but it ignores the serious evidentiary issues raised by the introduction of prior bad acts. To determine admissibility, you have to ask how is this Florida woman's testimony relevant to whether Kobe and his accuser had consensual sex? She wasn't there and doesn’t know what happened, so her testimony is only relevant to Kobe's character, i.e., that Kobe's the kind of guy who makes unwanted sexual advances to women. The rule, however, is that absent certain exceptions you can't use evidence of prior bad acts to prove that a person has a certain character and that at a later time he acted in conformity with that character. (Rule 404(b)). Moreover, even if it could be shown there was some relevance, the prosecutors would still have to get past Rule 403, which says that even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. The fact that some woman in Florida says Kobe grabbed her ass at a party just isn't probative enough on the issue of whether Kobe's sex with his accuser was consensual to allow a trial within a trial as to whether this Florida thing even happened. Courts regularly exclude this type of evidence.

[MrBug708]

Unwanted Sexual advances? That could be just a simple "Wanna to go to my bedroom"...*sigh*

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by clintl

You buy stuff to put in it with the $20+M a year you're making.

If Shaq wanted 20 million a year, he'd still be in LA

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Even if the case ever goes to trial, this "evidence" will never be admissible. The prosecutors know that, but they have to come out with something sensational after it was confirmed that the accuser showed up for her rape exam with another man's cum sticking between her legs.

I try to avoid any news on this, but I thought I heard the OPPOSITE had been confirmed...(no other DNA)

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

I try to avoid any news on this, but I thought I heard the OPPOSITE had been confirmed...(no other DNA)

Definitely heard wrong. There was one other mans DNA all over and inside her body. To make it even better this DNA was not found on Kobe or his shirt therefore strongly suggesting she was "brutally raped" by Kobe then had hot sex before going for her rape exam.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

I try to avoid any news on this, but I thought I heard the OPPOSITE had been confirmed...(no other DNA)

I'm just going off the transcripts that were just released and the fact that even the prosecution's DNA expert from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation will be testifying for the defense on this issue.

"The transcripts were made public at the direction of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer in response to a petition by the news organizations. The Colorado Supreme Court backed an order by Ruckriegle that threatened with contempt anyone who published the contents.

Bryant attorney Hal Haddon questioned defense DNA expert Elizabeth Johnson at length, establishing through her testimony that sperm and semen from a man other than Bryant — referred to as "Mr. X" in the transcript — was found on swabs taken from the accuser's vagina, inner thigh and other parts of her body at a medical examination about 15 hours after the alleged rape.

The defense believes Mr. X is either the accuser's former boyfriend, Matt Herr, or hotel bellman Bobby Pietrack. Ruckriegle already has ruled that evidence about the accuser's sexual relationship with those men is admissible.

In addition to the swabs, DNA from Mr. X was also found on two pair of her underwear — a purple pair she wore the day of the alleged rape and a yellow pair she wore to the medical exam. According to the transcripts, the prosecution explanation for the presence of Mr. X's DNA is that it transferred from the yellow underwear to the accuser's body. Prosecutors say the underwear had not been laundered when she put it on the morning of July 1 before going to the medical exam.

Johnson said it was unlikely that sperm would remain in the woman's vaginal tract for more than five or six days.

Furthermore, Johnson testified that DNA from Mr. X transferring from the yellow underwear does not explain why it was also found on the purple underwear.

The presence of blood on the yellow underwear is crucial, Johnson said, because no blood was found on the swabs taken from the accuser. Johnson said that had sperm and semen transferred from the underwear, "the blood would have also transferred to her thigh."

No DNA from Mr. X was found on the T-shirt Bryant wore during the alleged rape or on swabs taken from him at a medical exam, which Johnson said supports the defense contention that the accuser had sex with Mr. X after the encounter with the Laker star.

"We're talking about a snapshot of forensic evidence at the time this event, alleged assault, happened in the hotel room," Johnson said.

"It's just extremely far-fetched and unlikely that transfer from the yellow panties could account for all of these findings."

Renowned forensics expert Henry Lee sat in on the hearing on behalf of the prosecution, but did not testify. Neither did Yvonne Woods, a DNA expert from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation who was present to counter Lee's testimony had he taken the stand.

Woods is expected to testify for the defense even though she was endorsed as a prosecution expert. Haddon said Woods will testify that "transfer of DNA to all of the places on [the accuser's] body where it is found is highly unlikely.""

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...,2749061.story

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Definitely heard wrong. There was one other mans DNA all over and inside her body. To make it even better this DNA was not found on Kobe or his shirt therefore strongly suggesting she was "brutally raped" by Kobe then had hot sex before going for her rape exam.

Brutally Raped? If you describe it like that and in the same statement say she had sex with another man before her rape examine, makes me assume you have him tried and convicted in your mind...

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Brutally Raped? If you describe it like that and in the same statement say she had sex with another man before her rape examine, makes me assume you have him tried and convicted in your mind...

Thus the " " showing that I was being sarcastic.

I have tried him in my mind and found him not guilty thank you very much.

I thought the incongruity of my two statements in that sentence would show the sarcasm but I guess it didn't. That's the trouble with written communication.

[MrBug708]

Yup, hard to hear tones of voice on a message board.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Yup, hard to hear tones of voice on a message board.

really, it wasn't THAT hard...