Posted on 08/30/2004 1:22:14 PM PDT by Hawk44
EAGLE, Colo. - Attorneys in Kobe Bryant's sexual assault case began questioning jury candidates behind closed doors Monday after the judge rejected a request to let the media listen in.
The NBA star's right to a fair trial and the jury candidates' right to privacy outweigh "qualified" First Amendment rights of access, District Judge Terry Ruckriegle said after hearing from media attorneys.
The private questioning would be "very limited," the judge said. Areas to be covered in private include the potential jurors' personal experience with sexual assault, any potential racial prejudice they harbor, whether pretrial publicity has prompted them to form an opinion on Bryant's guilt or innocence, and on their familiarity with the accuser, Ruckriegle said.
Jury selection will be private until at least Wednesday, when reporters will be allowed to either listen to an audio feed or watch via closed-circuit TV. By then, the jury pool most likely will have been cut considerably from the original 300 to 400 participants.
Attorneys began questioning potential jurors individually after spending the weekend poring over answers the prospective jurors submitted to an 82-item questionnaire. About 100 people were expected to be added to the pool Monday because the separate case for which they were summoned was settled; court officials said a bigger pool raised the chances of seating an impartial panel.
Among other things, the questionnaire asked candidates how they feel about interracial relationships, whether they have had "any negative experience with an African American" and whether they were biased against mental health professionals. It also asked if they have been "affected by or involved in" marital infidelity.
Bryant, 26, has pleaded not guilty to felony sexual assault, saying he had consensual sex with a then-19-year-old employee at a Vail-area resort where he stayed last summer. If convicted, the Los Angeles Lakers (news) star faces four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation, and a fine up to $750,000.
Opening statements are expected Sept. 7.
While lawyers question the jury candidates, other attorneys and consultants would be watching the potential jurors carefully for clues to their attitudes in their body language and facial expressions, former prosecutor Craig Silverman said.
Prosecutors will probably look for people who view the case as a clear-cut question of whether the alleged victim consented to sex with Bryant, jury consultant Richard Gabriel of Decision Analysis said. He said defense attorneys probably want jurors who can appreciate nuances of behavior and personal interactions.
Attorneys on both sides of the case had argued against opening the private questioning to the media.
Prosecutor Dana Easter told the judge that open questioning of just a single candidate would raise the possibility of influencing the others' answers.
"There is a very real danger here that we will not be able to get a jury at all, If the press really reported what was going to happen to these jurors, I don't think we'd find anyone willing to serve," she said, in apparent reference to a trial that may last a month.
With his client in the courtroom for the first time since jury selection began, defense attorney Hal Haddon said knowledge that reporters were listening could prompt jury candidates to clam up in what he called a "chilling of candor."
Media attorneys, however, said constitutional rights were at stake.
"Not only the Sixth Amendment rights of the defendant, but the First Amendment rights of the press and public," media attorney Steven Zansberg said.
Ruckriegle disagreed, saying other rights took "primacy" in this case.
The judge also chastised the attorneys for appealing the issue last week, saying the media has known since December that public access to parts of jury selection in the high-profile case would be closed.
"You're asking that the court delay all proceedings until there's a determination made?" the judge asked. "(It is) unfortunate we couldn't have had the opportunity to discuss this earlier and work through a procedure."
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.