Do multiple before & after partners in Bryant case make conviction almost impossible?

Just wondering what the probabilities are of conviction in a case like this, if Bryant’s accuser had multiple partners immediately before and after her alleged rape by Kobe Bryant. Does it make conviction nearly impossible or not?

Prosecutors stung but still plan Kobe trial - Portion of accuser’s sexual history ruled admissible by judge on Friday

He’s a popular professional basketball player; conviction was never realistically possible. Whether he did it or not is almost irrelevant. If Ray Lewis could get away with murder…

As an aside, I though this “make the victim look like a slut” went out in the 80s.

Isn’t it less about ‘making her look like a slut’ and more about reasonable doubt?

If I recall correctly, she told police she hadn’t had sex with anybody else (I don’t have a cite for this and may be wrong). That would go directly to her credibility if she lied.

It would also complicate matters as any sexual trauma might have come from the other males she was with.

It seems, at least to me, to have direct bearing on the case.

I think that’s basically what they’re banking the case on. The evidence released to suggests (if true) that the accuser was quite sexually active. IIRC there was even a note in one news blurb early on about how she annoyed some of the other front desk personnel by using the hotel guest list as a potential dating roster. In and of itself that doesn’t mean anything, but in a “he said-she said” case that might turn on questions of intent and perceptions of harm, if the allegation is true that she was having sex almost immediately after the alleged rape trama with Bryant, it does kind of make you wonder about the degree of trama she had suffered. I’m not familar with the general nature of rape trama, but if she was injured and tramatized by Bryant in the violent manhandling she described, it does seem to be a bit odd that she wouldn’t take break from sex for a bit.

Not necessarily. Different people deal with trauma in different ways.

Perhaps she was trying to prove she was okay, or not “tainted” or “stained”?

It doesn’t help. The case wasn’t strong to begin with, even for a he said she said affair. She didn’t complain to the police or most of her coworkers at the time, the one person who says she did complain at the time was reportedly sexually involved with her, the physical exam showed very minor trauma for a brutal assault by a large athletic man. Then the idiots at the DA’s office got caught partying because they were going to get to try a celebrity. Then we found out that she’d volunteered for forplay and indicated to police at first that she may not have said no to sex. Then we found out that the rape exam would be of iffy evidenciary value because she’d had sex with multiple partners in close succession.

It’s not impossible that they’ll get a conviction, but if they had reasonable doubt in a dictionary this case would probably be the cited example.

It’s highly relevant to the injuries the accuser suffered, if those injuries are offered into evidence for the inference that they occurred during the sexual assault. If they are, then the defense is absolutely entitled to rebut the presumption that Mr. Bryant was the only possible source of the injuries by showing that the accuser had sex immediately before the claimed assault (or, indeed, after the claimed assault but before the medical exam).

Her conduct a month before the assualt, and her conduct a day after the medical exam, is inadmissible under Rape Shield. But since the defense team has obviously made a preliminary foundational showing that there is something in the accuser’s sexual history that’s in the right time frame, they are entitled to let a jury hear about these episodes.

  • Rick

I was only responding to astro’s question about how sexually active a woman might be after being raped, that’s all. I’m not arguing over whether or not Bryant is guilty.

I don’t have much experience with rape victims (thank goodness), but I’d be very suspicious if I heard someone was raped and then turned around and had sex with someone else soon afterward. It’s like someone who goes out for lunch and flashes a big wad of bills in public after he was mugged in the morning. :dubious:

Celebrity helps but doesn’t seal acquittal. A combo of evidence, defendant reputation & jury makeup really helps- OJ’s acquittal was based on the mismanagement of the first with a big assist from the jury composition.

Kobe’s prior rep & his admission of an affair may well help him but the accuser’s sexual behavior immediately before & especially after the alleged rape practically seals an acquittal. In this case, a defense attorney that didn’t fight to bring her alleged behavior into court just would not be doing his job.

That’s right. Just ask Mike Tyson!

I personally think Kobe’s accuser is either lying or she’s got some mental or emotional problems. I’m actually surprised she’s going through with this. I can’t see him going down for rape when she’s been fucking multiples before and after her Kobe encounter.

I also think the courts should shield the accused until a conviction is made. This poor guy will be marked forever for something he possibly/probably didn’t do.

I can definitely see Guin’s point here. However, while I can see finding comfort, or trying to heal by making love to someone, I don’t see it as a plausible response to go have multiple flings. While it’s possible, it does nothing for the accuser’s credibility, especially since it seems to fit with her pattern pre-rape.

The more I read about it, the more I’m convinced that this is a very troubled young woman that had a bad time with someone, and I guess thought that it would be better to go after Kobe the sports star rather than Harold the night janitor.

Back when I was I pro-death penalty, I thought that rape needed to be a capital crime, because in many ways, I think that it is worse than murder. Thing is, with a murder, at least you have a dead body as evidence…

I think that did go out. My understanding of the issue was what FinnAgain said, that it relates to who actually caused the sexual trauma. To use a crude analogy, if I sue you for battery and claim you gave me a black eye on Tuesday, it most certainly would be relevant if I was in a fight with another person on Monday. Maybe the other person gave me the black eye.

Here’s the thing - rape is a very very serious charge. You have to allow the accused to defend himself. You can’t just throw due process out the window because it’s an emotionally-charged subject - otherwise we would have a system where a man would automatically go to jail just because he was accused. That wouldn’t be any different than the Salem witch trials.

Just read the article - as I thought, the issue is exactly as I described it. The judge is only admitting evidence previous to the alleged rape, because it goes toward the cause of her injuries. Honestly, I don’t see how the judge could have possibly justified excluding such evidence. This isn’t about a “slut” defense at all. The prosecution is obviously going to use her injuries as evidence, so the defense has a right to question the validity of that evidence.

On another note, I read that the alleged victim has apparently received many threats. That just sickens me. Those people don’t know what happened; they weren’t there.

Correction - it says before her hospital exam, not before the alleged rape. Did she have sex again between the rape and the time she was examined? I haven’t been following the case that closely.

Here Evidence of other man’s semen revealed;

I don’t think this deserves its own thread, so I’ll post it here.
“The 20-year-old woman would be ineligible for at least $17,000 she has already received if she lied about the alleged rape, defense attorney Pamela Mackey argued in a June 21 hearing. She said the woman would have to reimburse the fund if lies were discovered — even more incentive to go forward with the case.”

Perhaps the only good thing about celebrity trials is that people may learn something about how the legal system works.

To me, this is very surprising. The accuser in the Kobe Bryant case has apparently been paid at least $17,000, and will only get the money if they stick to their story.

Coupled with earlier reports of prosecutors drooling over the opportunity to go after Kobe Bryant, this is even more disturbing.

Does anyone know if paying an accuser nearly $20K, then threatening to take it back if they waver in their story, is typical?