Posted on 07/23/2004 6:03:01 PM PDT by Hawk44
DENVER - In a huge victory for Kobe Bryant's defense, the judge in the NBA star's sexual assault case ruled Friday that his accuser's sex life during the week of their encounter can be used against her at trial.
District Judge Terry Ruckriegle said details of the woman's sexual activities in the three days before her July 1, 2003, hospital examination are relevant to help determine the cause of her injuries and the source of DNA evidence. He also said the credibility of the accuser was a factor.
One legal expert called the decision a stunning defeat for prosecutors that could derail their entire case.
"This evidence is as damaging a set of facts as a prosecutor could ever have to contend with and one wonders if at long last the accuser will pull the plug on this case," said Larry Pozner, former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Prosecution spokeswoman Krista Flannigan called it a "very significant ruling" and said prosecutors would decide how to proceed after reviewing the decision. The woman's attorney, John Clune, declined comment and defense attorneys did not return a call.
The defense's bid to question the accuser's credibility by bringing up her sex life was considered one of the most important pieces of Bryant's upcoming trial.
The defense has suggested the woman had multiple sexual partners in the days surrounding her June 2003 encounter with Bryant, including sex with someone after the alleged attack and before she contacted the authorities. The defense contends injuries found on her during an exam at a hospital could have been caused by someone other than Bryant.
The judge ruled that Colorado's strict rape-shield law, which generally prevents the sex life of an alleged assault victim from being admitted as evidence, does not apply to all the information Bryant's lawyers want to introduce.
He said he was convinced by the defense that "specific instances of sexual activity" and evidence of sex can be offered to bolster their contention that her injuries were not caused by Bryant.
Ruckriegle agreed that the woman's sex life in the 72 hours before the exam was relevant, but barred "any and all other evidence" related to her conduct.
Bryant, 25, faces an Aug. 27 trial on a single charge of felony sexual assault. He has pleaded not guilty, saying he had consensual sex last summer with the woman, then a 19-year-old front desk worker at a Vail-area resort.
If convicted, the Los Angeles Lakers (news) star faces four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation.
Cynthia Stone, executive director of the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the ruling was discouraging but said the final decision will be up to jurors.
"This stuff is going to be put in front of the jury along with all the other evidence — it's just a small piece of that," she said. "The ultimate question the jury has to answer is whether Kobe Bryant forced this woman to have sex against her will."
Prosecutors could ask the state Supreme Court to review the decision, said Norm Early, a former Denver district attorney familiar with the case. But he said such a request could suggest the prosecution believes the ruling harms their case.
The prosecution can still rely on evidence that includes Bryant's statements to investigators and a T-shirt stained with the woman's blood. Early also said the defense would still have to explain why the woman might have had sex before going to the authorities.
In a separate development, attorneys for the judge said they had asked U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) Justice Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) to uphold his order barring media organizations from releasing details from a closed-door hearing that were mistakenly e-mailed by a court reporter.
The judge's order, which was upheld this week by the Colorado Supreme Court, threatens The Associated Press and six other news organizations with contempt of court if they publish material from last month's hearing on the woman's sex life and other issues.
The media groups contend the order is an unconstitutional prior restraint of a free press. But the Colorado attorney general's office, representing Ruckriegle, said publication could torpedo the trial.
"Ruckriegle agreed that the woman's sex life in the 72 hours before the exam was relevant, but barred "any and all other evidence" related to her conduct."
I have to reluctantly concurr with that opinion. If the accusser is alleging physical harm, then why would she (as alledged) have sex between the time of the "rape" and the exam?
However, even if she did have sex after the Kobe "rape", and even if he did not physically harm her, it still is rape if it is not consensual. No means no. You don't bend some women over a chair, pull down her pants and do your thing if she says no or does not clearly say yes.
The whole issue stinks. The woman's behavior, Kobe's behavior, the muck of destroying a woman in court who alledges rape. How does one sort fact from fiction, or truth from lies?
I don't want to see an innocent (at least of rape) man sent to prison, but I don't want a guilty one to walk free because he "target" was a less than wholesome individual.
Like I said, this whole thing stinks.
ding ding ding
well said
FINALLY some justice in this case.
Perhaps there should be more stringent rules of proof for "rape" allegations which did not involve significant evidence of assault as well.
I think that when the woman found out who Kolbe was she decided to see if there wasn't some $$$$$$$ money for her. In the meantime I think she would do well as a hooker.
Rape Shield has its limits and this is it.
Heck, that goes for all men. You don't go to a man's hotel room/apartment/ et al because he loves your mind.
Women are stupid that way.
In principle I agree with you, but I would rather a guitly person go free with this set of facts than risk the state taking away the freedom of an innocent person with this set of facts. No means no, but this was basically a short date. Two people entering into a voluntary sexual relationship.
That is the admitted expectation of the woman and the implication of Mr. Bryant's behavior. The woman claims that at some point she wanted to stop the relationship maybe short of intercourse. That can be a rape, but it is not quite the rape of a stranger or someone not seeking sexual interaction with you.
I'm not sure about that. My wife and I had no difficulty raising our two daughters ito become respectable ladies. I have a hunch the mother, and perhaps the father, is somewhere close to the daughter in their sexual habits.
From what I have read of the so-called victim , if she didnt consent to have sex with Bryant, Bryant must have been the only male in town she didnt consent to.
"The man who commits adultery...shall surely be put to death."
Leviticus 20:10
He admitted to adultery, should he likewise not be trusted as telling the truth?
"That can be a rape, but it is not quite the rape of a stranger or someone not seeking sexual interaction with you."
I don't like being the position of defending this woman. What she did was stupid and was bound to get her in trouble. However, "rape" is not excuseable just because the person you perpretate it upon is naive.
No is no good answer here I'm afraid.
"Rape Shield has its limits and this is it."
I said I agreed with the judge's ruling, and I agree with you. However, it doesn't mean I have to like it!
"anytime i hear about a celebrity committing a crime i say to myself they are 100 percent guilty (and i am usually right) however this time I have to say Kobe seems innocent. Rape is a horrible thing of course but being accused of rape is no walk in the park."
I don't know if he is guilty or not. However, I am sick and tired of these brutes (jocks, presidents, et.al.) abusing their celebrity to prey on the stupid, naive, or ambitious.
"I think that when the woman found out who Kolbe was she decided to see if there wasn't some $$$$$$$ money for her"
You may be right, I don't know. Let us hope that the court can get to the truth.
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.