Bryant case could hinge on recording Lakers star wasn't read his rights before conversation

USA Today ^ | 03/09/2004 | Tom Kenworthy

[harpu]

"...suspect's prior approval." He's not a suspect until he is so notified. Until then, he is only a source for 'fact finding'.

[Tax-chick]

Thanks, I've saved that! No matter how law-abiding one tries to be, in our current regime, you can never quite be sure.

[thathamiltonwoman]

If I ever decided to commit a crime I'd go Colorado home of the most apparently inept police in the nation.

[gwjack]

Tape is in.

Random thoughts:

Colorado statutes mentioned in the thread permit taping with the consent of a party to the conversation. The officer consented.

Bryant apparently invited (or permitted) the officers into his room. He could have asked the officers to leave at any time. If he did, and they refused to leave, then he would be in custody.

Even if the tape (and poisoned evidence) is suppressed, the testimony of the accuser will be unrefuted. It will be questioned and challenged but totally unrefuted. If Bryant takes the witness stand, and tells a different story than what is on the tape, it will come in to impeach him.

Gwjack

[harpu]

Great summation...I think you're 'smack on!'

[Malchus]

I've read elsewhere that the biggest problem is that Winters had signed paperwork before that effectively detained him... look here

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/nfcnn.02.html

there was also the whole warrant being served at the wrong time fiasco. Detective Winter is really incompetent.

[Poodlebrain]

Why were the six other officers at the hotel for the so-called fact finding? What were their instructions prior to arrival at the hotel? Had the police obtained a warrant to collect physical evidence from the alleged crime scene?

If they were there prepared to arrest Bryant or serve a warrant, then they should have read him his rights.

Also, I'd pay particular attention to how the detectives advised Bryant that he was the suspect in a sexual assault investigation as it should be part of the recording.

It would have to be very evident that Bryant understood that he was being questioned as a suspect in order for me to allow the tape into evidence.

[Therapist]

Thanks to the intelligence of the posters at Free Republic, I think the tape is out.

[Therapist]

Bryant will not take the stand. Make book on it!

[jimbo123]

The tape is in. And Kobe won't take the stand because he's guilty. Funny how the Kobots aren't the least bit interested in what Kobe told the police on tape. Only how they want it excluded so their hero can go free.

[Sacajaweau]

We'll see. The time thing is ridiculous. I assume a judge signed the warrant and if time was not restricted in that warrant, the judge had given permission for a search at any time.

[Sacajaweau]

He risked it all. Tough sh** Mr. Bryant. It shows that "star" quality outranks morals anyday.

And poor Janet, the boob bomber, her new recording isn't at the top like she thought. Too bad!

[meenie]

It only sounds reasonable that a rape would be legitimized by the policeman questioning the rapist. Makes you proud of the justice that we enjoy in the US. We need to export our brand of democracy all over the world. That they should be so lucky.

[Therapist]

I think he's off like a prom dress.

[Therapist]

I think he's off like a prom dress.

[Poodlebrain]

Just when should the police have given Bryant the warrant to gather evidence? To my thinking that was their official purpose for being at the hotel, and their first duty should have been the serving of the warrant and collection of the evidence. Had they done so they would have been obligated to inform Bryant of his rights rather than treating it as a situation where Bryant was privileged to protect his rights.

In effect the police played games with Bryant's Constitutional rights, and I do not think they should be rewarded for their gamesmanship. Rights are too important to be left to the whims of law enforcement to test how far they can go before violating them.

[DustyMoment]

He's not a suspect until he is so notified.

This could be one of those "what the meaning of 'is' is" kind of arguments. IMO, the fact that the police officers were sitting in the parking lot, apparently staking him out, suggests that, at some level, he was considered a suspect. The formal determination of whether he is a suspect could be based on the filing of the complaint by the victim. Otherwise, they have no basis for sitting there.

This is probably getting into some pretty gray areas of the law and, not being a lawyer, I am pretty much over my head.

[gg188]

Detectives Doug Winters and Daniel Loya were sitting in a van in the lodge's parking lot. They were startled when Bryant, on crutches, approached them. ''What's going on fellas?'' Bryant asked

Wonder why Bryant was in the parking lot? And if he just happened to be walking through the parking lot---say to or from his car or a cab---why would he approach a (presumably unmarked) van with two men in it? He singled out this vehicle in a parking lot of a (presumably not small) resort?

Does that strike anyone as weird? Had he been tipped off he was undersurveilance and he went out to the van to pre-empt or attempt to resolve the situation?

[cyncooper]

In