No Kobe Criminal Trial?

[MrBug708]

Associated Press
DENVER -- The woman accusing Kobe Bryant of rape will have to discuss with prosecutors whether she will go ahead with the criminal case because she fears the release of court documents about her sex life threatens her chance of getting a fair hearing, one of her lawyers said Wednesday.

John Clune said his 20-year-old client will have to talk to prosecutors soon about that and will also consider whether to file a civil suit against the NBA star

Asked if his client is considering dropping out of the criminal case, Clune told The Associated Press: "That's something she and prosecutors will have to discuss in the immediate future. The DA's office will have to make that decision on what they want to do."

The woman's other lawyer, L. Lin Wood, said decisions on how to proceed should be made in a matter of days. Bryant is scheduled to go on trial Aug. 27 in Eagle, Colo.

"This young woman is not going away. Whether it proceeds criminally or civilly or both, justice is going to be had for this young woman," Clune said.

Prosecutors have been in constant contact with the accuser and her lawyers throughout the case, and were told the woman would still participate even after the release of the transcripts, district attorney's spokeswoman Krista Flannigan said.

"Nothing has changed with our plans of going forward with the prosecution of this case," she said.

Under pressure from the U.S. Supreme Court, District Judge Terry Ruckriegle on Monday released some 200 pages of transcripts from a closed-door hearing in June. The transcripts had been mistakenly e-mailed to The Associated Press and six other media organizations, who fought for the right to publish their contents.

The documents include testimony from a DNA expert for the defense, Elizabeth Johnson, who says she is convinced the accuser had sex with someone after Bryant and before she contacted authorities -- a claim Clune has vehemently denied.

Johnson based her conclusion on the discovery of another man's sperm on the woman when she underwent a rape exam at a hospital.

There was no testimony in the documents from a prosecution expert on the issue. Clune and prosecutors say the transcripts are one-sided and that a gag order in the case prevents them from presenting their explanation of the evidence before the trial.

Prosecutors have suggested the woman put on underwear that hadn't been washed before going to the hospital, transferring semen from a man identified only as "Mr. X" to her body.

The judge has said the defense can present evidence about the woman's sexual activities in the three days before the July 1, 2003, hospital exam, saying it is relevant to help determine the cause of her injuries, the source of DNA evidence and her credibility.

Clune has kept a low profile during the case but on Wednesday he and Wood appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" to express their frustration with a series of court mistakes that have breached the woman's privacy.

"The amount of damage that has been caused by the court's error is so harmful not only to this case but to this young woman that it would be irresponsible for us not to speak at this time," Clune told the AP.

In September, the woman's name was included in a filing on a state courts Web site that was quickly removed. Last fall, the hospital where she and Bryant were examined accidentally turned over her medical records to attorneys in the case.

That was followed by the e-mail mistake in June and a gaffe last week in which a sealed order by Ruckriegle was mistakenly posted on the Web site, divulging her name again and information about DNA evidence collected during Bryant's hospital exam.

Bryant, 25, has pleaded not guilty to felony sexual assault, saying he had consensual sex with the woman at a Vail-area resort last summer. If convicted, he faces four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation, and a fine up to $750,000.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Would be a shame not to have a decision, but isn't the only damages you can get in a Civil Trial be monetary damages? Kobe does get paid here in a few days, 10 million dollars. He gets almost all of his contract before the season.

[rkmsuf]

This sets up so perfectly for a pay off.

[MrBug708]

Personally, the girl should be more pissed off at the Courts at this point....

[GrantDawg]

Wow. How can this not look like exactly what many people claim? She looks like she was in this to get paid.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

This sets up so perfectly for a pay off.

Which, when you think about it, has been what this was playing up to all along.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Which, when you think about it, has been what this was playing up to all along.

I guess but now she has an out to not look like a total golddigger.

We'll never know what went on because surely team Kobe would strike a deal before any serious civil action.

[MrBug708]

I'd be willing to bet that part of the agreement is that she'll never talk to any media organizations about the case. You know Kobe won't ever talk about this issue.

[miked]

Yeah, it's the court's fault...

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Wow. How can this not look like exactly what many people claim? She looks like she was in this to get paid.

My thoughts exactly. It's a shame that the court has made mistakes, but this really sets up badly for her if she doesn't proceed with the criminal prosecution and only accepts a civil settlement.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

My thoughts exactly. It's a shame that the court has made mistakes, but this really sets up badly for her if she doesn't proceed with the criminal prosecution and only accepts a civil settlement.

Not if the release of documents threatens their case as they contend. They are passing the buck here...

[clintl]

I really cannot understand the logic of some people here. The court has repeatedly made mistakes by revealing personal information that puts her at personal risk, and ruled that prior sexual history can be used by the defense despite Colorado's shield laws, and when she's pretty much had enough of being abused by this judge, she's suddenly only in it for the money?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by clintl

I really cannot understand the logic of some people here. The court has repeatedly made mistakes by revealing personal information that puts her at personal risk, and ruled that prior sexual history can be used by the defense despite Colorado's shield laws, and when she's pretty much had enough of being abused by this judge, she's suddenly only in it for the money?

What he said.

[hhiipp]

I'd let Kobe have sex with me for money.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

I'd let Kobe have sex with me for money.

I'm sure he'd buy that for a dollar.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by clintl

I really cannot understand the logic of some people here. The court has repeatedly made mistakes by revealing personal information that puts her at personal risk, and ruled that prior sexual history can be used by the defense despite Colorado's shield laws, and when she's pretty much had enough of being abused by this judge, she's suddenly only in it for the money?

She was looking pretty bad before this. It looks a whole lot more like a reason to get out the non-money making side than self-preservation. If she want to save herself she wouldn't continue to push a civil trial. She will be "abused" in a civil case much more than she would have in the criminal trial.

[clintl]

Kobe the Groper was looking pretty bad, too, even if his prior sexual assault history probably won't be allowed into evidence.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by clintl

Kobe the Groper was looking pretty bad, too, even if his prior sexual assault history probably won't be allowed into evidence.

Prior sexual assault history? WTF? You better tell the prosecutors in Colorado all about this one because you're the first person who's ever accused him of this and believe me they've looked.

I just love it when people make wild assed accusations that aren't backed up by fact. Oh wait, of course, Kobe is rumored to have touched a woman at a party and when she objected he backed off. Sexual assault history indeed.

[Fritz]

I thought State (or County) was the one to bring charges, not the woman. In many cases they will press, even when the supposed victim requests that they do not.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Prior sexual assault history? WTF? You better tell the prosecutors in Colorado all about this one because you're the first person who's ever accused him of this and believe me they've looked.

I just love it when people make wild assed accusations that aren't backed up by fact. Oh wait, of course, Kobe is rumored to have touched a woman at a party and when she objected he backed off. Sexual assault history indeed.

Here. The way I read it, it is far less innocent that when you're implying. When more than one woman starts coming forward with these kinds of stories, it does begin to suggest a pattern. And it doesn't seem like this woman is out to get anything, either.

Who knows, maybe they're all lying about Kobe. I think Kobe is probably going to be acquitted if it goes to trial. But right now, both of them have credibility problems. The Florida woman, on the other hand, I don't see any reason right now to think she's not telling the truth.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ad.php?t=28702

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Fritz

I thought State (or County) was the one to bring charges, not the woman. In many cases they will press, even when the supposed victim requests that they do not.

True, but in this case all the scientific evidence supports the defendant. Heck, the states own lab is testifying for the defense. All they really have is her word to convict him so in this particular case it wouldn't make any sense to proceed if she doesn't want to.

[Fritz]

I am just asking why the state is not making or making a case based on the merits as opposed to the wishes of the supposed victim.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by clintl

I really cannot understand the logic of some people here. The court has repeatedly made mistakes by revealing personal information that puts her at personal risk, and ruled that prior sexual history can be used by the defense despite Colorado's shield laws, and when she's pretty much had enough of being abused by this judge, she's suddenly only in it for the money?

How much of her history did the court decide to allow? I was under the impression they were only allowing evidence about who she'd been with the same night as the assault, before going to the authorities... and no matter how much you try to stretch the rape shield laws, it's hard not to consider that fair game.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Fritz

I am just asking why the state is not making or making a case based on the merits as opposed to the wishes of the supposed victim.

And that was answered. They have no case without her bcause there is no evidence against him without her.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by clintl

Here.


http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ad.php?t=28702

That is not sexual assault though. It's an unverified rumor about a woman who claims he came on to her at a party and then backed off and apologized. BTW, this from an article that used a fake inteview and reported it as fact. The credibility factor is extremely low.

Especially since the judge ruled that the rape shield law was upheld in part( I know ) because the prosecution was going to introduce no prior bad acts. Now suddenly, in a highly suspect article they are planning to call a woman he groped at a party and when she objected he left her alone.

Worker in Portland says no, he backs off. Woman in Florida says no, he backs off. Hell, even the accuser said when she said no, he backed off. I guess I always thought rapists were made of sterner stuff.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Axxon

That is not sexual assault though. It's an unverified rumor about a woman who claims he came on to her at a party and then backed off and apologized. BTW, this from an article that used a fake inteview and reported it as fact. The credibility factor is extremely low.

He "groped her private parts." That is sexual assault, not "coming on to her."

[miked]

Well, the Rape Shield Law clearly needs to be challenged in some cases. If you can prove the person has a history of deviant sexual practices, why can't that be used against her? If she's got a history of getting gangbanged (not saying that she is) doesn't that weigh on the credibility of the person making the claim?

And aren't they trying to use the Shield Law to protect the fact that she most likely had sex the day before and pretty soon after the alleged Kobe incident? I understand she's not on trial, but the whole case is pretty much based on her account of what happened, and if she's not credible that should go against her.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by clintl

He "groped her private parts." That is sexual assault, not "coming on to her."

Yep, uh huh, right. It was such an assault that she never mentioned it to the authorities and it only magically comes out ( in ONE article with huge credibility issues )on the day the transcripts are released showing that the accuser had sex after Kobe supposedly violently raped her basically broadsiding what was left of the prosecutions case. This isn't convenient at all though.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by miked

Well, the Rape Shield Law clearly needs to be challenged in some cases. If you can prove the person has a history of deviant sexual practices, why can't that be used against her? If she's got a history of getting gangbanged (not saying that she is) doesn't that weigh on the credibility of the person making the claim?

No. That's the whole point of the rape shield law. It DOESN'T weigh on her credibility at all.

And aren't they trying to use the Shield Law to protect the fact that she most likely had sex the day before and pretty soon after the alleged Kobe incident? I understand she's not on trial, but the whole case is pretty much based on her account of what happened, and if she's not credible that should go against her.

This is acceptable which is why the judge let it in past the rape shield.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by miked

Well, the Rape Shield Law clearly needs to be challenged in some cases. If you can prove the person has a history of deviant sexual practices, why can't that be used against her? If she's got a history of getting gangbanged (not saying that she is) doesn't that weigh on the credibility of the person making the claim?

As John Galt argued pretty convincingly, I think, if someone is sexually promiscuous, but has not accused partners of rape before, that should make it more credible. But, in fact, juries have the attitude that you are expressing her - using it prejudicially against her.

[heybrad]

The problem I have with what you are saying Clint (and you know I love you buddy) is that you leave absolutely no defense in the case where there was consensual sex. It must be rape because the woman said so.

I'm stunned that people would be OK with ignoring the fact that she had sex after being raped but before being examined as apparantly the evidence shows. Rape is a brutal crime. Its a violent crime and I'm saying this from having a family member who was raped and knowing what they went through. Thats not how rape victims act.

I dont know what happened that night in Colorado, but I do know that I can think of a number of variations of what might have happened based on the evidence we know so far.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by heybrad

The problem I have with what you are saying Clint (and you know I love you buddy) is that you leave absolutely no defense in the case where there was consensual sex. It must be rape because the woman said so.

I'm stunned that people would be OK with ignoring the fact that she had sex after being raped but before being examined as apparantly the evidence shows. Rape is a brutal crime. Its a violent crime and I'm saying this from having a family member who was raped and knowing what they went through. Thats not how rape victims act.

I dont know what happened that night in Colorado, but I do know that I can think of a number of variations of what might have happened based on the evidence we know so far.

Actually, that is not true. I said I think Kobe will be acquitted based on the evidence, and as the evidence stands now, probably should be, although I'm not convinced he's actually innocent, either. I just don't think the comments about his accuser assuming that she's only after the money at the top of this thread were justified. As far as whether her actions are consistent with those of a rape victim, I have no opinion on that.

I also think that maybe her attorneys are thinking that there's no way Kobe will be convicted, but maybe in civil court, where the standard of evidence required is much lower, there's still a chance to salvage something out of it.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by clintl

Actually, that is not true. I said I think Kobe will be acquitted based on the evidence, and as the evidence stands now, probably should be, although I'm not convinced he's actually innocent, either. I just don't think the comments about his accuser assuming that she's only after the money at the top of this thread were justified. As far as whether her actions are consistent with those of a rape victim, I have no opinion on that.

I also think that maybe her attorneys are thinking that there's no way Kobe will be convicted, but maybe in civil court, where the standard of evidence required is much lower, there's still a chance to salvage something out of it.

The only thing wrong with that is that there is no rape shield law in a civil trial. Think the defense is playing hardball now? In a civil case they can throw the kitchen sink at this girl.

If they actually feel that they can't get justice in a criminal court it's laughable that they feel that they can get better with all the new stuff the defense will bring in. Remember, this isn't an OJ thing where it comes down to a controversial jury decision.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by clintl

I also think that maybe her attorneys are thinking that there's no way Kobe will be convicted, but maybe in civil court, where the standard of evidence required is much lower, there's still a chance to salvage something out of it.

And all I was saying was there is no way she can drop the criminal case and continue with the civil case without looking like she was in it for the money. I started as a strong defender of this accuser (though I had no idea of Kobe guilt or innoncence. Still don't). It angered me when people accused her being a money-grubber before any facts came out. After most of the facts are on the table, though, I believe her motive is fair game.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by clintl

Actually, that is not true. I said I think Kobe will be acquitted based on the evidence, and as the evidence stands now, probably should be, although I'm not convinced he's actually innocent, either.

I'm not sure anyone other than those intimately involved in the case have enough knowledge to make an assessment based on the "evidence" in the case. Pretty much everything comes "we" know comes from media reports, and I'd hasten to call that "evidence."

That said, if you could bet on this thing (and I'm sure you could somewhere), I'd lay money on an acquittal.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And all I was saying was there is no way she can drop the criminal case and continue with the civil case without looking like she was in it for the money. I started as a strong defender of this accuser (though I had no idea of Kobe guilt or innoncence. Still don't). It angered me when people accused her being a money-grubber before any facts came out. After most of the facts are on the table, though, I believe her motive is fair game.

I have no doubt that people will feel this way, but I think, if anything, what she has been through in the past year (death threats, being called every name in the book, etc.) gives her credibility (against a gold digger claim, not necessarily on the veracity of her statements).

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm not sure anyone other than those intimately involved in the case have enough knowledge to make an assessment based on the "evidence" in the case. Pretty much everything comes "we" know comes from media reports, and I'd hasten to call that "evidence."

That said, if you could bet on this thing (and I'm sure you could somewhere), I'd lay money on an acquittal.

With all due respect, this evidence doesn't come from media reports, it comes from erroneously released hearing transcripts. It's actually testimonial evidence not opinion and it really looks bad for the prosecution.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Axxon

With all due respect, this evidence doesn't come from media reports, it comes from erroneously released hearing transcripts. It's actually testimonial evidence not opinion and it really looks bad for the prosecution.

I haven't gone to the Colorado court web site, but everything I've seen (even with regard to the edited transcripts) are still news reports about the transcripts. And I'll agree that prosecutors have seen better days.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by digamma

I haven't gone to the Colorado court web site, but everything I've seen (even with regard to the edited transcripts) are still news reports about the transcripts. And I'll agree that prosecutors have seen better days.

Here you go, the actual transcript.

http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.d.../NEWS/40802001

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Here you go, the actual transcript.

http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.d.../NEWS/40802001

Thanks!

[judicial clerk]

I think that it is not unheard of for rape victims to have consensual(sp?) sex shortly after the rape. This behavior seems counterintuitive and I don't think that it is common, but I think it does happen in a percentage of cases.

Also, I am sure that the prosecutors represent the state of Colorado and so the victim does not have the power to stop the prosecution from going forward. Most DA's will give strong consideration to the victim's wishes when deciding on how to proceed in any given case. However, there are many cases where the victim of a crime refuses to cooperate with the authorities and the prosecutors go forward anyway.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by heybrad

I'm stunned that people would be OK with ignoring the fact that she had sex after being raped but before being examined as apparantly the evidence shows. Rape is a brutal crime. Its a violent crime and I'm saying this from having a family member who was raped and knowing what they went through. Thats not how rape victims act.

No offense, but one experience doesn't define them all. My wife's cousin was raped after work about four years ago and at first, she didn't tell anyone because of how it had emotionally effected her. That night she went home and had sex with her husband, as they normally would have, but it wasn't until four or five days later than she could finally go to the police and tell them she had been raped.

There seems to be different ways to handle the experience for different people.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

I think that it is not unheard of for rape victims to have consensual(sp?) sex shortly after the rape. This behavior seems counterintuitive and I don't think that it is common, but I think it does happen in a percentage of cases.

Understand that we here are discussing this simply in terms of credibility. It's an issue which will affect reasonable doubt but it's not the way the defense is using this information.

The prosecution is contending that sex with Kobe caused her "injuries." These injuries are consistant with multiple consential sexual partners in a short period of time. Proof of post Kobe sex makes it very difficult to pin these injuries on him and use this as proof of force as the prosecution is trying to do.

On the one hand, if he injured her, why would she proceed to have sex shortly after the rape? Mental trauma aside, it makes no physical sense. If she had multiple sexual encounters around the same time, and we know of three incidents, one she confessed to, Kobe and the mystery guy, then how can the prosecution say that Kobe caused the injury? There's no way to pinpoint it and thus they can't. This again brings it back to his word against hers.

With that, we're back to the credibility issue. This is an awful lot of doubt to clear away IMHO.

Also, I am sure that the prosecutors represent the state of Colorado and so the victim does not have the power to stop the prosecution from going forward. Most DA's will give strong consideration to the victim's wishes when deciding on how to proceed in any given case. However, there are many cases where the victim of a crime refuses to cooperate with the authorities and the prosecutors go forward anyway.

Where would your case be if she walks? You've lost on the physical evidence as stated above. What else is there but her word? I agree that the state can proceed, it has every right to, but there's no way it would.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't really believe "physical evidence" is going to weigh much on the outcome of any trial, civil or criminal, in this case.

It's going to come down to: Which one do you believe? Him? or Her?

Neither of them appears to be a saint but in this instance, one of them is lying.

Which ever one a juror thinks that's most likely to be, that's how they'll vote.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which ever one a juror thinks that's most likely to be, that's how they'll vote.

In one sentence, Jon succinctly describes the keen working of the entire trial by jury system since it's inception.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by clintl

his prior sexual assault history

I would ignore any claims which have been made since Kobe was accused of rape last summer. They might be true, but it is just as likely that they are bullshit. If Kobe had a reputation prior to this date I may be less sceptical, but not much less.

There are people out there who will come forward after news like this and make all kinds of false claims. A couple of years ago a British TV star was accused of rape, and not long after the accusation, 30 women came forward to say he had abused them. To cut a long story short, he was cleared of everything last summer.

For this reason I am sceptical about prior assault claims made in this way.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

In one sentence, Jon succinctly describes the keen working of the entire trial by jury system since it's inception.

Except for the whole "the evidence won't matter" part

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Except for the whole "the evidence won't matter" part

nah, I think that was implied as well.

[rexallllsc]

How many people who get raped have sex with someone else afterwards, before they go to the hospital?

We'll never know the truth on this one, but this girl is sketchy, to say the least.