Bryant's Accuser Is Ordered to Testify

Associated Press ^ | 03/03/2004 | Jon Sarche

[Therapist]

EAGLE, Colo. - The woman who accused Kobe Bryant of rape will face detailed questions about her sex life when she testifies in a closed hearing in three weeks, a judge has ruled.

Hours after an attorney for Bryant's accuser denied a claim that the woman had sex with someone else the morning after the alleged attack, State District Judge Terry Ruckriegle made his decision.

The 19-year-old woman is scheduled to face her alleged attacker for the first time in court in the March 24-25 hearing.

The Los Angeles Lakers (news) star's attorneys subpoenaed her in hopes her testimony would convince the judge that her sexual conduct in the days surrounding her encounter with Bryant can be used at trial.

Prosecutors had argued such questions were irrelevant and asked the judge to limit what Bryant's lawyers could ask.

Under Colorado's rape-shield law, the sexual activity of an alleged victim is presumed to be irrelevant; defense attorneys have to convince the judge otherwise.

Bryant, 25, is accused of sexually assaulting the woman on June 30 at the Vail-area resort where she worked. Bryant has said they had consensual sex.

He faces four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation if convicted of the felony sexual assault charge.

The normally stoic Bryant smiled, waved and flashed the peace sign to a dozen cheering, sign-waving children when he left the courthouse Tuesday after a two-day hearing.

In addition to the question of the woman's testimony, this week's hearing dealt with the whether she had waived her right to keep her medical records confidential and whether investigators had illegally questioned Bryant.

Ruckriegle did not immediately rule on the confidentiality question. Arguments on the investigators' question will resume at the March 24-25 hearing, also behind closed doors.

The only part of the hearing expected to be open will be arguments on the rape-shield law, which Bryant's attorneys have challenged as unconstitutional.

Defense attorneys Hal Haddon and Pamela Mackey say the details of the woman's sex life are important in determining whether she was injured by other men and whether she suffered emotional trauma, as prosecutors claim.

They also say they want to know whether she had a "plan" to sleep with Bryant to win attention from an ex-boyfriend.

The woman's attorney, John Clune, said the claim that she had sex the morning after the attack was "patently false."

[Therapist]

The right to face your accuser is an important part of our legal system. Rape shield laws are patently unfair.

[KantianBurke]

I was under the impression that rape shield laws outlaw the naming of the accuser in public and her sexual past. Have nothing to do with facing the accused in a courtroom.

[cyncooper]

The rapist

has spoken

again

[dwilli]

Where is the outrage from women's rights advocates?

[Therapist]

Where were they on William Jefferson Clinton?

[Bikers4Bush]

Her "sexual past" includes the days prior to and following the supposed rape.

Since there were a number of different samples found from different men in the underwear she wore the day of the supposed rape and the day after her "sexual past" is entirely relevant and should not be shielded.

One of the samples is reported to be 15 hours more recent than Bryants. That means she had sex after he supposedly raped her. Not the sort of behavior you'd expect from a true rape victim.

In addition her medical records should be made available in court. If she is Bi-polar and on certain medications as has been reported then the defense has a right to introduce that as evidence.

[Capt. Jake]

You must believe everything the defense has leaked. Their strategy appears to have worked with you at least.

[KantianBurke]

morning B4B. No, I agree. But the other poster was insinuating that rape shield laws prevent the accused from facing his accuser in court which i don't think is correct.

[Bikers4Bush]

I believe the evidence that has been reported. Since the defense didn't get her underwear until last saturday then that evidence (4 separate samples) came from the prosecutions lab and therefore was leaked by someone on their side.

Anything else or would you just like to send a man who's most likely innocent to jail just to satisfy you?

[savedbygrace]

Where were they on William Jefferson Clinton?

You might want to re-phrase that. ;-)

[Bikers4Bush]

Well depending on how you look at it it'd be right and wrong. It wouldn't prevent the defense from calling her to testify about the alleged incident but it would prevent them from mounting a credible defense by introducing key evidence about her sexual escapades just prior to and following the claimed rape.

The rape shield is too broad from what I read about it the other day. It could prevent virtually any questioning with respect to sexual past even if that past is only the day prior to and following the incident.

[Bikers4Bush]

Morning, back at you.

[cyncooper]

Your mistake is interpreting the proffered information in the defense light. They referred to a number of samples, not belonging to Bryant, but did not say they each came from a different guy.

BTW, her attorney has put out a statement flat out denying the defense allegation she had a sexual encounter after Bryant.

Known facts: Within the two weeks prior to Bryant she was with the ex-boyfriend and the bellman consensually. She was with Bryant--he says consensually, she says not. We know there was semen on the underwear she wore to the exam the next day that does not belong to Bryant, and that traces were found on her person, the prosecution will argue transferred from the soiled garment.

My prediction: Dirty underwear and traces on her skin in that area were from one guy---obviously either the ex-boyfriend or the bellman, and the other evidence that results have not been offered in court yet will come from Bryant: The vaginal swabs and the neck area that was alluded to yesterday.

[cyncooper]

And as to the defense "not getting" the underwear--they've had their own expert present at all testing the prosecution has done.

You make it sound like they've been kept out of the loop or something. Also your assertion that the "leak" came from the prosecution is absurd. The defense uttered their "3 samples!" spin in court because they knew the results from their own expert, and were referring to 3 pieces being cut out. Not 3 different persons being the donor.

[Bikers4Bush]

My prediction, she's a slut who saw dollar signs and has been caught.

[Bikers4Bush]

It was reported that three samples were found that did not match Bryant.

[rdb3]

My prediction, she's a slut who saw dollar signs and has been caught.

Thank you. For all intents and purposes, this case is over.

[cyncooper]

It was reported that three samples were found that did not match Bryant.

That's what I said. But they did not say the 3 samples came from 3 different people. I predict it will be 3 samples from one donor. See? Most likely the samples were from the underwear and the flakes found on her person.

[Bikers4Bush]

It won't be three from one donor. It has been reported that there are currently three separate individuals refusing to submit DNA samples.

It has also been reported that one of the employees that worked at the place mentioned that it was as if the accuser was using the place as a dating service.

She'd done and the prosecutors will be lucky to keep their jobs once Bryant and Co. are done suing them.

[cyncooper]

It's been reported there are TWO people who will be tested who did not volunteer. Obviously the ex-boyfriend and the bellman I pointed out.

The donor on the underwear and her person, that did not come from Bryant, will turn out to be from one of them.

The third person is Bryant.