Bryant expected to learn this week if he's going to trial

First Coast News ^ | 10/19/2003 | AP

[yonif]

DENVER (AP) -- Kobe Bryant may find out this week whether he will stand trial for rape, a case that could send the NBA superstar to prison for life if he is convicted.

Judge Frederick Gannett was expected to release his ruling as early as Monday, and many legal experts believed he would order a trial.

"If the (woman's) story indicates that she was sexually assaulted, that is enough to bring the case forward absent some conclusive proof that she is lying," said Christopher Mueller, a University of Colorado law school professor.

During a two-day preliminary hearing that wrapped up last week, graphic and sometimes conflicting evidence emerged about the June 30 encounter between Bryant and the woman at the mountain resort where she worked.

The 19-year-old woman told sheriff's investigators Bryant raped her. Bryant has said the sex was consensual. If a trial is ordered, attorneys for the Los Angeles Lakers' guard could appeal but legal experts say that would be an unusual move. Bryant, free on $25,000 bond, has the right to a trial within six months of entering a plea.

[xzins]

"If the (woman's) story indicates that she was sexually assaulted, that is enough to bring the case forward absent some conclusive proof that she is lying,"

I thought in America it was the accused who was presumed innocent.

The above should read, "no way to bring the case forward absent some conclusive proof that she is telling the truth."

If this judge thinks their obvious reason to have doubt about Kobe's guilt, then he should halt this trial and save his county some money.

[truth_seeker]

"I thought in America it was the accused who was presumed innocent."

The issue under consideration is "probable cause." Different than a final determination of guilt, innocence in the TRIAL.

Seasoned criminals know to always plead "not guilty" especially when they are guilty.

Bryant clearly has skilled defense. Let the jury decide.

[Coeur de Lion]

Your logic is absurd. Bringing this case to trial if there's no conclusive evidence that the alleged victim has lied has nothing to do with the presumpion of innocence. Your substitution is that there should be conclusive proof that she's telling the truth. According to your logic: if my house is burglarized and I'm an eye-witness, I need to conclusively prove that I'm telling the truth, otherwise it shouldn't go to trial.

[xzins]

No, my piece says that if there isn't compelling/conclusive evidence supporting the accusation of the accuser, then the case shouldn't go to trial, OR if there is compelling evidence of the accused's innocence, then the case shouldn't go to trial.

And if there is no damning evidence against the guy you accuse of being the burglar, then why WOULD you want it to go to trial? Just to get a conviction? Just to have a trial?

[xzins]

I don't think I'd call Bryant a seasoned criminal. He's spent too much time playing basketball at his young age to have gotten in too much trouble. This situation was a stupid thing on his part....and cruel to his wife.

But stupidity and being a bad spouse are not crimes, so I don't think he should go to trial just because he's been dumb. (And, yes, I'm assuming his innocence here. Having a girl in his room and having sex with her was dumb ... and a violation of God's law.)

I'm not sure about the trial and the jury. I wouldn't order the trial. I've seen enough to convince me that he shouldn't be convicted. I've got plenty of reasonable doubt.

[Coeur de Lion]

There is conclusive evidence: he had sex with the woman. The question is whether it was consensual. That will be decided by the court.

[xzins]

The accusation was rape. Absent some conclusive proof that she is telling the truth, that accusation should not go forward.

There needs to be some conclusive proof that she was raped that should be presented.

You shouldn't get to run around accusing someone of a RAPE without some evidence that RAPE was committed by the accused. You shouldn't get to run around accusing someone of BANK ROBBERY without some evidence that BANK ROBBERY was committed by the accused. (Just because he had a transaction that day at the bank shouldn't be cause to accuse him of being the bank robber.)