Bryant to Face His Accuser in Court

Associated Press ^ | 03/23/2004 | Jon Sarche

[Therapist]

DENVER (AP) -- When the 19-year-old woman accusing Kobe Bryant of rape walks into court on Wednesday, it will be the first time she has seen the NBA star since their encounter last June.

Bryant, 25, has said the two had consensual sex in his room at a Vail-area resort where the woman worked. The Los Angeles Lakers star faces four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation if convicted of felony sexual assault.

[Therapist]

The lowdown on the hodown is coming.

[Iscool]

Probation for rape, eh??? Only in America...

[Tax-chick]

I amazed this is still going on! Irrespective of the merits of this case, the glacial pace of our legal system is a travesty!

[sticker]

Bryant should be forced to testify about his sexual history. Including any charges of sexual misconduct

[Therapist]

He isn't the one crying "Fire".

[sticker]

No, he's the one saying that he is such a nice guy he wouldn't do anyhing like that. The whole thing comes down to he said - she said. The case rests on the character of the two principles. If his lawyer can question the character of the accuser, then why shouldn't the DA be allowed to question his character?

[capitan_refugio]

I'd like you to go back and read the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. You seem unfamiliar with the content.

From Amendment V:

"... nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness, against himself ..."

From Amendment VI:

"... the accused shall enjoy ... the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him ..."

In the American system of jurisprudence, an accused person can not be "forced to testify" about anything. On the other hand, if the accuser does not feel she can give truthful testimony in open court, subject to cross examination, then the Prosecution should drop the case.

[Mr. K]

While the whole thing comes down to "he said she said" what SHE is saying is that she went to a married mans room alons after midnight and claims she was injured when she had several partners before AND possible after Kobe.

Rape is serious- this womans claim is not

[sticker]

Where does it say that the lawyer for the accused can say or do anything to destory the accuser?

[sticker]

So she went to a married man's room alone after midnight she admits that. Does that mean that bryant could do whatever he wanted to? If he wasn't a basketball player would you still be defending him?

[Bullish]

Let's get Kobe and the other guy and just have a measure off.
The guy with the biggest package goes to jail.

;^)

[Bullish]

I amazed this is still going on! Irrespective of the merits of this case, the glacial pace of our legal system is a travesty!

This is speedy compared to the Robert Blake trial, and he murdered his wife (apparently). Blake keeps firing his lawyers so he can keep saying he isn't ready for trial, and the judge has yet to put a stop to it.

Meanwhile he enjoys his scotch and sodas while he's out on bail. Our legal system is a mess.

[NorthWoody]

The woman had DNA from two different men in her underwear at the same time!!! And she was actually wearing them.

I think it is this fact that has hurt her more than anything. Pardon my French, but she's a nasty skank. Kobe should be more careful or he may catch something that penicillin runs away from!

I also feel she should be required to testify in open court and not in the judge's chamber. Rape or not, she is accusing a national figure of a serious crime and is costing the Colorado taxpayers a pretty penny. She should be made to stand tall and state her case in front of the citizens.

For the record, I don't believe her, nor do I believe Kobe, and no matter the verdict, I still won't know which goofball to believe. My view is that both of them should have known better than to put themselves in that situation in the first place. Unless, of course, this woman saw dollar signs when she heard that Kobe Bryant was staying at her place of employment. I mean what the heck, her underwear already needed washing, what's one more...er..um...load? Of laundry, that is. :)

[Tax-chick]

How can a jury reasonably evaluate testimony, after so many months? Everything any witness might say has been rehashed, coached, rephrased ... until it's all a facade.

If I were God, I'd suggest Kobe pay a fine for unutterably poor judgment, let the young woman call him a name in public, and then get her some psychotherapy (sounds like she needs it), and call it even.

[sinkspur]

Where does it say that the lawyer for the accused can say or do anything to destory the accuser?

Pattern of behavior is very important here. If she had sex with one or two other men before her encounter with Bryant, that can be used to establish that Bryant may not have caused her purported "injuries."

If she had sex with somebody after her "rape," I don't know why she's even bothering with this charge. Nobody will believe her.

[Bullish]

I personally think that Blake will never go to trial. If Blake thinks he going to be convicted, he'll just take a bunch of pills or something.

I hope I'm wrong, but the guy looks like a ticking time bomb.

[Tax-chick]

It wouldn't surprise me. In the news stories I've seen, he didn't look normal.

[capitan_refugio]

It doesn't say that anywhere; likewise, the prosecution can not offer evidence (physical or in the form of testimony) without giving the defense an opportunity to question its validity. The judge will not let the defense lawyers go beyond bounds.

However, the prosecution has the burden to prove its case, and in a so-called "he said/she said" situation, the veracity of the testimony and the testifier will be crucial. False accusers deserve to be destroyed. Truthful testimony may well result in a conviction. The idea is that justice be done.

[Therapist]

Not to mention that the accuser also screwed the two prime witnesses for the prosecution. A bigger question might be, how many rich guests at the hotel did she perform her special services for.

[Mr. K]

NO, it does not mean that... I never said he was allowed to do anything because she wen to his hotel room.

If you were able to read and comprehend better you would see that the point I was making was that she put her self in a position less defensible in court.

I was in no way implying 'she deserved it', only that she brought about the situation she finds herself in, especially if she had sex with several other men before AND AFTER she had sex with Kobe.

How did you extrapolate that to thinking I said he should get off because he is a basketball player? Go take a course in logic and critical thinking, you need it.