For what it's worth. . . .
So, here's my evaluation so far (based on the statements of the parties involved, which, of course, may or may not be true):
The girl, who has not made any public statements, is described as a graduate of the local high school and an honors student from a stable family, which family she is with currently. Her friends described her as a down-to-earth person, a good friend, etc.
Kobe's attorneys say that Kobe will not entertain the idea of a plea bargain, and that he is going to trial, end of discussion. Kobe attends the press conference, and speaks without utilizing a prepared statement.
The prosecutor said that he has ample evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt--testimony and physical evidence. But, he also stated that the decision was very hard to make, and involved an in-depth analysis of the evidence, the relevant statute, and the relevant caselaw interpreting that statute.
Something's gotta give here.
My gut reaction is that Kobe did something enough to qualify as a technical violation of the statute, but not something extremely violent. Were this a case that involved the application of serious force on the victim, it's doubtful that the decision to prosecute would have been very difficult, and that a reference to the caselaw would have been needed. Also, were serious force involved, I highly doubt the idea of a plea bargain would be summarily rejected by the defense, particularly when the trial will likely take place during the NBA season.
Check out the statute under which Kobe is being prosecuted: http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2003/0718/1582732.html
Again, I have a gut feeling, here that subsection (d) may be involved. It seems the most subtle of the subsections, and strikes me as the subsection under which it would be toughest to evaluate the evidence and the relevant caselaw surrounding the issue. It may also explain the defense attitude that a plea bargain is out of the question, as the defense may feel that, under the facts, the application of subsection (d) is incorrect in this case.
Of course, if I am correct, there are some confusing statements. One of the alleged victim's friends said that the alleged victim claimed Kobe "snapped." The prosecutor claimed that he had ample physcial and testimonial evidence. Both of these indicate that a more-than-technical application of the statute may be at hand.
At any rate, that's my take, at this early stage in the proceedings and without any information other than the statements of those included. I have no idea if I am right, but I think one thing is sure: someone is going to look very foolish if this thing continues to go forward and the parties stick to their guns.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
So, here's my evaluation so far (based on the statements of the parties involved, which, of course, may or may not be true):
The girl, who has not made any public statements, is described as a graduate of the local high school and an honors student from a stable family, which family she is with currently. Her friends described her as a down-to-earth person, a good friend, etc.
Kobe's attorneys say that Kobe will not entertain the idea of a plea bargain, and that he is going to trial, end of discussion. Kobe attends the press conference, and speaks without utilizing a prepared statement.
The prosecutor said that he has ample evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt--testimony and physical evidence. But, he also stated that the decision was very hard to make, and involved an in-depth analysis of the evidence, the relevant statute, and the relevant caselaw interpreting that statute.
Something's gotta give here.
My gut reaction is that Kobe did something enough to qualify as a technical violation of the statute, but not something extremely violent. Were this a case that involved the application of serious force on the victim, it's doubtful that the decision to prosecute would have been very difficult, and that a reference to the caselaw would have been needed. Also, were serious force involved, I highly doubt the idea of a plea bargain would be summarily rejected by the defense, particularly when the trial will likely take place during the NBA season.
Check out the statute under which Kobe is being prosecuted: http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2003/0718/1582732.html
Again, I have a gut feeling, here that subsection (d) may be involved. It seems the most subtle of the subsections, and strikes me as the subsection under which it would be toughest to evaluate the evidence and the relevant caselaw surrounding the issue. It may also explain the defense attitude that a plea bargain is out of the question, as the defense may feel that, under the facts, the application of subsection (d) is incorrect in this case.
Of course, if I am correct, there are some confusing statements. One of the alleged victim's friends said that the alleged victim claimed Kobe "snapped." The prosecutor claimed that he had ample physcial and testimonial evidence. Both of these indicate that a more-than-technical application of the statute may be at hand.
At any rate, that's my take, at this early stage in the proceedings and without any information other than the statements of those included. I have no idea if I am right, but I think one thing is sure: someone is going to look very foolish if this thing continues to go forward and the parties stick to their guns.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
Comment