Prior bad acts are generally inadmissible against an accused if the purpose of the evidence is to prove that the accused acted in conformity with those acts for the crime charged.
In other words, you cannot say, “Steve (or Kobe) is charged with rape, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, and you should find him guilty because he’s already been found guilty of three other rapes, so we know he’s a rapist.”
Prior bad acts are admissible in some situations: to show a common plan, scheme, or motive, to show absence of mistake, or as they relate to credibility - there is a presumption, varying form state to state, that a convicted felon may be impeached if he testifies with the fact of his convictions. (In other words, the jury may consider the previous convictions as they impinge on the credibility of the witness, NOT for the inference that he did something bad before and so is more likely to have done something bad now.)
If an accused has a history of luring women to a hotel room, then bending them over a chair and forcibly having sex, that’s probably relevant and admissible to a current charge where the facts alleged include luring a woman to a hotel room, then bending her over a chair and forcibly having sex, since it shows a common plan or scheme. If the fact patterns in previous accusations were wildly different, they are probably NOT admissible in the current trial.
[quote]
Winters said the Eagle woman told him she had consensual sex on June 27 or June 28 and had used a condom, backing earlier defense suggestions that she had been sexually active before her encounter with Bryant.
Winters also said two pairs of panties from the woman were tested — one from the night of June 30, the other being the one she wore to a hospital for an exam the next day.
The latter pair contained blood and semen, Winters said.
“The accuser arrived at the hospital wearing panties with someone else’s semen and sperm in them, not that of Mr. Bryant, correct?” defense attorney Pamela Mackey asked.
“That’s correct,” Winters responded.
Pubic hair samples from the woman also turned up Caucasian hairs that could not have come from Bryant, who is black, Winters said.
In Wednesday’s court filing, defense attorney Hal Haddon said prosecutors misrepresented blood evidence found on the underpants.
“The clear implication of this testimony was that the accuser was bleeding due to the alleged sexual assault,” he said. The prosecution deliberately failed to “put before the court all of the evidence concerning those panties.” [/qoute]Now, how do you suppose that she would end up with some fresh, motile, Caucasian persons semen in her panties the day after the alleged rape? Just curious.
Damn juxta-coding. Now, how do you suppose that she would end up with some fresh, motile, Caucasian persons semen in her panties the day after the alleged rape? Just curious. is my scribbling, not in any way associated with USAToday, their writers, editors or publishers.
If (and it’s a huge “if”) that sperm in her panties the next day was “fresh and motile” and by implication she had sex with the boyfriend (or whomever) after the purported horrific assault by Bryant, you might as well put a fork in this case in terms of being able to obtain a jury conviction of rape against Bryant.
If you show up in the hospital to be checked for an alleged rape, don’t show up wearing panties containing semen from a guy who isn’t the alleged rapist…
This whole thing with the “torn vagina,” what does that mean exactly. Its phrases like that one which incites people…and most probably have no idea in what way her vagina was torn or if that even has signifigance at all. My girlfriend sometimes complains that things get a little sore after sex…could this constitute a torn vagina? I personally have no idea whatsoever if he did it or not, and I really don’t care. I just hear alarm bells go off when people start throwing around a phrase like that and I can only assume most people (like me) do not know if it really is signifigant or not.
I completely agree with you that this new information raises significant doubt.
It does not, however, expose her alleged sexual promiscuity. For the third time, respectfully, what has been presented so far to make you believe the facts will bear out her promiscuous nature?
Other than the mounting evidence that she has sex with multiple partners over a few short days, you mean? Other than her admitting to having sex shortly before the incident with Kobe, and it certainly seems that she was active directly following it, as well.
I’m not attacking you, thinksnow, but you generally lay out a cogent argument, so in my humble opinion your assertions must be based on facts. Let me just make something clear: I have seen no proof of “multiple partners.” Please show me a cite.
Short of that proof, I submit having sex multiple times with one Caucasian male, then sex (rape or consensual) with Mr. Bryant does not make her promiscuous. Remember, the “three guys in three days” was just an unanswered implication on behalf of the defense.
You have shown reports that display she is a fool: having a white guy’s spunk and pube in her shorts at the same time she accused Mr. Bryant is contemptibly stupid. You have shown nothing to prove her promiscuity.
thinksnow, as I said previously, I had sex with someone within days of going to another man’s hotel room with the intent of having sex with him, too. If the 2nd guy had raped me, how would the fact that I had a “promiscuous nature” be relevant to whether or not you believed me if I’d’ve come forward with an accusation? You still haven’t answered that one.
How does a woman who’s had multiple partners over a few short days become incapable of being raped during one of those encounters?
You’re only surmising “that she was active directly following [her encounter with Mr. Bryant].” What if this girl had had sexual relations with a guy she was dating the day before having gone to Mr. Bryant’s room with him, then, being distraught and absentminded due to the trauma of having been raped by Mr. Bryant, picked up the wrong pair of panties from the laundry hamper, thinking she needed to be wearing to the hospital what she had on during her encounter with Mr. Bryant, so they could test her clothing?
**Bryant’s lawyers this morning opened holes in the testimony of the detective who interviewed Bryant’s 19-year-old accuser.
Attorney Pamela Mackey asked Eagle County Sheriff’s Det. Doug Winters about his initial interview with the accuser. Winters said that the woman never told Bryant “no” during five minutes of sexual intercourse in an Edwards, Colo., hotel room June 30. When the woman resisted, Bryant stopped, Winters said.
“When she moved his hand away, he stopped,” Mackey said.
“Yes,” replied Winters.
“There is no dispute he stopped,” Mackey said.
“Correct,” Winters said.**
This changes it for me. Of course there is still a whole trial to go. I don’t see how the prosecution can overcome this police testimony. Anyone who wants to believe that Kobe is innocent will have easy reason to do so.
Mr. B, I haven’t been able to find a cite. I was going by media tapes of the hearing and the piece by piece analysis by radio commentators. When the hearing transcripts are online, I’ll link them – if the case goes that far.
Re the above testimony by the policeman … I don’t get it. If that’s what she actually told police then where is the rape accusation coming in? She didn’t say no and he stopped when she physically indicated for him to stop. This thing is turning into a big, confused mess.
Due to the nature of rape, I would think it inconceivable for a rape victim to go have sex the following day. If you change your wording from “one of those” to “the last” encounter, you might have something.
Random thought: I wonder if the sperm and hair would match the bellhop that followed her home “out of concern” for her?
Mr. B, I’m sorry, I realized after the fact that my tone might seem short and I certainly realize that you are not “attacking” me or my opinion. Glibness doesn’t always play out well online.
And, factually, you are correct- there is no <i>direct</i> proof that she was with multiple partners over the days in question, but, well, I frankly took it as given based on the phrasing of the original statement. After all, saying that she’d been with one guy, her boyfriend or regular partner or whoever, a few times over a few days is hardly any implication of promiscuity, and it would hardly be worth bringing up by the defense, therefore, the only reasonable conclusion, IMO, would be that they were implying they had evidence of multiple partners.
Which leads me to Shaynas post: it really goes without saying that a person could be raped at any time, any place, without any regard for number of present or past partners. <I>But</I>, I’ve not been solely stating that because she is promiscuous, she is lying, but instead that because she seems promiscuous and because of some of the other details (mainly- going on about her business as though all was normal in the world and not coming forward until apparently being rebuked by her friends), because of the combination of details, I take her story as false.
And now, based on ** Belowjob2.0**s post, I have no idea how or why this ever went further than an inquiry!?
I’ve got to add my voice to those asking why this went beyond an enquiry. There’s too much contradictory information, and if the prosecutor had this information from the get-go, they ought to be disciplined. If now it appears she never said no that contradicts published reports that she did, and that Bryant claimed nobody would believe her.
Was the prosecutor’s office that eager to nail a celebrity?
Many years and girlfriends ago, my girlfriend was raped after being taken out of the apartment at knifepoint during one of the “off” phases of our on-again off-again relationship. She reported it and went to the counseling sessions she was advised to go to.
She said they kept wanting to go over “disillusionment with men” stuff and she kept trying to explain to them that she had never had any illusions about men. The event had not surprised her, had not deeply traumatized her or screwed badly with her head — the worst of it was before they left the apartment worrying about one of the kids waking up and coming out and getting hurt, and then worrying that he was going to kill her. She had a deeply shaken sense of physical security and safety but not so much of what we usually think of as specifically sexual trauma. She said as far as that part was concerned, “I’ve been on worse dates”.
(He threw her down the bank of a highway shoulder and drove off afterwards)
To a major extent (IMHO), this reflected her image of herself as One Tough Broad who wasn’t going to let Men get over on her and intimidate or control her. I could visualize her seeking me out the next day and wanting to have sex as soon as possible to establish that she still could, that the rapist couldn’t take her enjoyment of that away from her. As it turned out, I wasn’t in the area for an additional couple months and she didn’t tell me about it until I came by; she may not have been quite so matter-of-fact about it at the time, but from her description of her conversation with the police she was already more contemptuous and cynical than upset and traumatized even then.
Point? Ummm…well, I think holding a rape victim’s subsequent sexual behavior against them is as inappropriate as holding their prior sexual behavior against them. It is against the law to rape someone even if it doesn’t traumatize them to the core of their being and simply pisses them off instead. Just as it is equally illegal to assault a formidably muscle-bound person or a frail person who is more readily injured by your punches.
Yes, that would almost certainly be inadmissible for the purpose of proving that the same thing happened to the accused. It might be admissible as impeachment evidence if the vicitim testified to the contrary, but it would almost vertainly NOT be admissible out of the blue, as it were.
We may certaintly debate the wisdom of that evidentiary rule, but the people of the various states, expressing their will through their elected legislatures, have determined that such information is not relevant in the course of a rape trial.
She apparently had consensual sex before the rape.
she also apparently had consensual sex after the rape. This does nothing to either “she was raped” or “She wasn’t”.
re: establishing the damage seen - perhaps.
however- Bryant had her blood on his shirt. Whatever damage had been done prior or afterward, it would seem clear to me that her encounter with Bryant caused her to bleed enough that he got it on his shirt (and from the description of the event, I’ll let y’all visualize how that could have happened).