Posted on 07/23/2004 3:32:50 PM PDT by sinkspur
While her previous sexual history will not be admitted, the judge has just ruled that any post-KB-sexual activity WILL be admitted.
Cyn, the order doesn't have to establish it. Pamela Mackey has, and will, establish it sufficiently to establish reasonable doubt.
The fact that the judge granted this allowance, with a cautionary word at the end that there might be room for a settlement, tells me all I need to know about this case.
I don't think this decision undercuts the purpose of the rape shield law, which excludes prior sexual encounters where there sole purpose is to show character conformity. That law is comparable to evidentiary rules which prevent the admission of extraneous misconduct by a defendant to show character conformity.
You analysis about the implications of past history is very insightful. In addition think about the harm.
Would one rather err on the side of the victim when say a 17 year old previous virgin claims rape v. a 21 year old with a long long past. Of course either might be lying, but I know where I think the greater harm was done.
If the woman in this case was raped, it was a crime and something terrible was done to her. But she is not the 17 or 14 year old girl whose first sexual experience is an nightmare for the rest of her life.
Sexual history was meaningful to juries and they used it in their decision process. For that reason leftists decided they needed to take that information away from a jury?
hmmmmmmmm...wonder why....
what are you talking about?....women do that all the time and they don't expect to get raped for it....(going to a hotel room)
"Juanita" from the Clintoon days stated that she INVITED the Chief Rapist into her hotel room, yet I would bet 99% of freepers believe her story , as I do, but I guess if its not the one and only Clintoon as the perp, we just can't believe anything at all.....
What do they expect? Was this accuser going to Kobe's rooms to talk about his percentages inside the paint?
Please. She was expecting some action, and she got it.
The question is, was it rape?
gee, we have been hearing that from day one....
how many times have people said that she would drop this case, and guess what?...she hasn't dropped the case, and I bet the DA wishes she would....
death threats and people rambling thru her house, her name and pic all over the place, and her entire medical history up for grabs because of a "mistake" ..HA....by the court system....
too bad the Bryant guy wouldn't have made some kind of a deal early on, saving him and her and their families all of this nonsense.....
you say he is innocent?.....that might very well be, but there is a price to be paid for screwing around on your wife with an apparently emotionally unstable person....
IOWS.....he is reaping what he sowed....
I thought I remember reading that it was he who asked her to come to his room; it might be I remember wrong.
She ran to his room up the back stairs after 1030 at night. What woman in her right mind would go to a man's room (especially at night and especially alone), and not believe that this left her wide open to what ever happened.
He didn't have to let her in.
Current law does not allow such evidence's admissibility unless it is relevant to a particular issue at trial.
From the newspapers who found she was out dancing and other things right after and found a guy she gave a clothed lap dance to.
She licked his face, but he felt she came on just a tad strong and didn't want anything to do with her.
Mother Teresa this girl is not.
Yeah, I know a little bit of the history of the jury system. The way the jury system originally developed it was your neighbors who knew if you were a habitual liar or not that made up your jury.
It is only in recent centuries that knowing a defendant became a disqualifying characteristic. So yes I think that the defendents past behavior is relevant. Heck many think past behavior ie reputation, is why Kobe Bryant will not be convicted and Mike Tyson was. You see this making past acts not admissible only works for the defendant who is not famous or infamous.
And think about the comparison of the Bryant and Tyson cases:
1. Bryant guy with a good reputation and persona, Tyson a guy will a well known junvenile record and an bad persona.
2. Bryant alledged victim woman with a bad reputation, Tyson victim according to the jury a woman with a good reputation.
3. Both women went to the room voluntarily. Both cases became a he said/she said case.
Actually what the court said was the 72 hour period before her hospital exam, which covers both the before and after period.
"BTW, regarding going to Kobe's room at night that was part of her job. She was a hotel employee."
Not bloody likely!! According to prior statements, she had to sneak up to Bryant's room. Doesn't sound like part of her job to me!!
She took a back route to his room to avoid the bodyguards, then took him on a tour of the premises where they were observed, then back to his room.
"She took a back route to his room to avoid the bodyguards, then took him on a tour of the premises where they were observed, then back to his room."
Almost right.....
She took him on the tour first then snuck up to his room. Besides, if she was just doing her "job" why should she have to avoid the bodyguards or anyone else???
I was right the first time, going by testimonial record to date.
She did not sneak back up to his room. She took him there the first time when he checked in, then went to get him for the tour and took the back way to get there and they went on the tour, then together back to his room and that is when the encounter then took place.
And you seem to have put words in my mouth. Where did I say she was just doing her job? Let's stick to facts and not make things up that people have done or said.
He requested the tour when he arrived and she conducted the tour. Why did she have to avoid the bodyguards?? My information says he invited her back to the room. It was after this that she used the back stairway to go to his room.
"She admits that she stayed late on the job in order to meet Bryant and that she expected him 'to put a move on her,' yet she secretly snuck up to his room, flirted with him, showed him her two tattoos -- one of which was on an unspecified area of her back -- and kissed and hugged him, willingly."Linda Chavez
October 22, 2003
Townhall.com
Doesn't really matter... either way it certainly wasn't job related.
I don't have a version. I go by sworn testimony. I like Linda Chavez, but she's wrong. One must go by what is presented in court, not the media.
And I already pointed out I never claimed it was job related (though she was on the clock, since you insist on acting like I made an issue of it).
It does matter if you're going to misrepresent the strict facts because you took what you now want to claim is an insignificant fact of the timeline and want to wield it against the accuser. Notice I don't get involved in personalities or make leaps and bounds conclusions based on how I want it to be.
Here is the link to where the testimony starts where she first takes him to his room, then goes back via the back route and they do the tour, then to his room. I can't cut and paste but here is where it starts:
I realize that's the current state of the law. But I'm questioning why that's so and I'm pointing out why people are still inclined to judge the truth of a rape claim based on prior sexual history. There is a reason for that. They are trying to decide who to believe based on character.
It's admissible if it explains how she got the injury or, arguably, whether her behavior after the "assault" was consistent with that of a true victim (though that'd be a stretch). The dividing line is between evidence of her character and evidence that tends to prove the defendant's alibi.
And frankly, I think that's silly. In a "He said/She said" situation like this, the way both Kobe Bryant and his accuser have acted in the past is relevant to how plausible their stories are. If Kobe Bryant had a prior history of sexually harassing or assaulting women, it would make the accuser's claims that she were raped more credible because it would show that Kobe Bryant has a previous history of doing something like what he's accused of doing by this woman. Similarly, if the woman has a history of consenting to sex with people she hardly knows, that would show that she has a previous history of doing something like what she's accused of doing by the defense. No, a pattern of behavior doesn't prove anything, but it's all a jury has to work with when determining whether the charges are true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, you can argue that no person should ever be prosecuted solely on the word of another and that's fair enough. But that means that rape prosecutions must take place entirely in the realm of evidence and the problem there is that "consent", the key element that differentiates a rape from a legal sexual encounter, leaves no evidence and that leaves very little to work with when the encounter was coerced by not violent, per se.
And for the record, no, I don't like the idea of a woman's sexual history being dragged out in court (particularly when there is evidence of a violent rape) and claims that a promiscuous woman deserves to be raped are wrong and contemptable. On the other hand, limiting juries only to evidence and denying them access to information about the character of both parties means that a lot of guilty rapists are going to get off the hook.
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.