Posted on 10/15/2003 11:09:41 AM PDT by TomB
EAGLE, Colo. -- Kobe Bryant's lawyers argued in court papers they have "compelling evidence" the NBA superstar is innocent of rape and accused prosecutors of ignoring it.
The defense said tests on the accuser's underpants found "other substances" from a "source" other than the Los Angeles Lakers' guard. The lawyers argue that injuries to the woman may have been caused by previous sexual partners.
The details were released in a court filing at the same time Judge Frederick Gannett rejected a prosecution request to close the remainder of a preliminary hearing to protect the 19-year-old accuser.
The hearing is to determine whether Bryant, 25, will stand trial on a charge of sexual assault. He has said the sex with the Eagle woman was consensual.
After meeting with attorneys for more than an hour Wednesday, Gannett then admonished the news media to exercise restraint in drawing any conclusions from testimony.
"Understand you have been privy to only a portion of the information," Gannett said. The hearing then resumed with the defense's questioning of the lead investigator, sheriff's Detective Doug Winters.
The hearing then resumed with the defense questioning of the lead investigator, sheriff's Detective Doug Winters.
Winters said the Eagle woman told him she had consensual sex on June 27 or June 28 and had used a condom, backing earlier defense suggestions that she had been sexually active before her encounter with Bryant.
Winters also said two pairs of panties from the woman were tested -- one from the night of June 30, the other being the one she wore to a hospital for an exam the next day.
The latter pair contained blood and semen, Winters said.
"The accuser arrived at the hospital wearing panties with someone else's semen and sperm in them, not that of Mr. Bryant, correct?" defense attorney Pamela Mackey asked.
"That's correct," Winters responded.
Pubic hair samples from the woman also turned up Caucasian hairs that could not have come from Bryant, who is black, Winters said.
In Wednesday's court filing, defense attorney Hal Haddon said prosecutors misrepresented blood evidence found on the underpants.
"The clear implication of this testimony was that the accuser was bleeding due to the alleged sexual assault," he said. The prosecution deliberately failed to "put before the court all of the evidence concerning those panties."
The defense said that evidence had been given to Gannett, under seal, and it provided "compelling evidence of innocence."
Prosecutors have accused the defense of a "deliberate and calculated" attempt to dredge up testimony about the woman's sexual history that is irrelevant at such an early stage of the case.
"What was even more unexpected was her conscious misrepresentation of the evidence in order to smear the victim publicly," prosecutor Ingrid Bakke wrote in a court filing Tuesday.
Bakke said Colorado's rape shield law bars the use of an alleged victim's sexual history in rape cases, with few exceptions.
Last week, the hearing began with graphic testimony from Winters, who said Bryant attacked the woman from behind and raped her over her protestations.
The defense then suggested in open court the accuser may have had sex with other men. Prosecutors responded by asking for the hearing to be closed -- a request ridiculed by the defense.
"Now after damaging information about Mr. Bryant essentially unchallenged by cross-examination has been heard in open court and distributed worldwide as the prosecution intended, the prosecution now seeks to close the hearing," Haddon wrote.
"The defense never wanted this hearing to be open," he added. "Now that it has begun in open court ... Bryant's right to a fair trial will be eviscerated if the prosecution is able to achieve what it clear intended all along."
The judge is expected to issue a written ruling on whether the case will go to district court for trial. If it does go to trial and Bryant is convicted of the sexual assault charge, he faces up to life in prison.
Bryant, free on $25,000 bond, was at Wednesday's hearing.
Also Tuesday, prosecutors said they had received medical records mistakenly released by a Glenwood Springs hospital where the woman was examined -- and had shared them with Bryant's lawyers.
Prosecution spokeswoman Krista Flannigan said the records had been returned and copies destroyed at the request of the hospital.
Defense attorneys unsuccessfully sought the medical records from a number of places, including an Eagle clinic and a student health service at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley. The woman was treated earlier this year for an undisclosed mental health problem.
The judge threw out defense subpoenas for the medical records, saying the issue should be determined by the trial judge if the case goes that far.
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
Aha! But they could have if Kobe had sex with another caucasian women before having sex with this one.
Kobe Bryant is a Nasty man, when the "19" Year Old Woman/Girl said NO, don't do that, Kobe who is much older and a MARRIED man should have STOPPED.
He is NOT even the least bit ASHAMED of Himself and His Behavior...He Cheated on His WIFE and FAMILY.
He LOST control of himself, and took what he wanted.
And as for the "19" Year Old Woman/Girl...She should NEVER have been in Kobe's Bed Room/Hotel Room to begin with.
She could have refused to go and she should have asked the Hotel Management to send a Male Employee up to Kobe's Room.
That would have Prevented her and Kobe from being in this situation and big mess in the first place.
Morality, Decency, Respect for Self and others in America is almost NON - Existent.
GOD HELP US.
Note that I don't know who is telling the truth- but the defense lawyers are damn sure not going to wait for the actual trial to destroy his accuser. (And the judge does not seem to have much control of his courtroom- note that the defense attorney named the accuser SIX TIMES in the hearing, receiving only admonishment. I suspect that by the 3d or 4th violation of the "No-Name" order, a strong judge would have cited this legal vulture for contempt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.