Of course. That's the point.
One side, especially one that doesn't like its position, begins to leak evidence or "evidence," if you will, in order to taint the jury pool. This is especially true if the leaked "evidence" is stuff that might not be admissible in court. The other side, feeling like the case will be lost before the first hearing if nothing is done, leaks back.
That's all that's been happening since day one. This is actually a classic case of leaking, since it appears that the defense started the leaking (notice that most of the info in the first few days focused on the accuser's mental and sexual past, most of which couldn't be mentioned in court). Defense lawyers don't feel quite as bound by ethics requirements as do prosecutors (since defense attorneys don't have superiors breathing down their necks, nor are they answerable to anyone other than their client, who doesn't really care how he gets off so long as he does), and all they really need to do is sow enough doubt to get their client off. This is a very common and, unfortunately, effective strategy for defense attorneys.
Remember, to these people, it's not about guilt or innocence; it's not about justice or injustice; it's about winning or losing. It's sick, really...
That's what got Kobe into trouble in the first place...