Kobe's Prosecutor:Accomplice to one of the slickest scams you'll ever see...

Great Debates
1

The following two paragraphs of analysis set the stage:

“For one thing, most civil cases settle before trial,” said Craig Silverman, a Denver defense lawyer and former prosecutor. “In this case, both sides have a lot to lose if they have to sit on the witness stand in federal court. And what might be a lot of money for the woman might not amount to much for a multimillionaire athlete. So everybody has a motive to get it over with.”

Lawyers for the alleged victim said she was deeply concerned when the judge in the criminal case ruled that some of her sexual history could be presented to the jury at trial. And in a civil case, much more of her background would be fair game for Bryant’s attorneys.

Bear in mind that the District Attorney who filed the initial charges was aware of every detail of the (ultimately) catastrophic evidence that he hoped to suppress via the operation of the ubiquitous “rape shield laws”

Turn away, (if only for the moment) from your justified concern that a particular type of criminal charge is categorically to be exempt from normal evidentiary tests the overall objective of which are to enhance the likelihood that finders of fact will arrive at the truth.

Focus instead on the scumbag prosecutor who saw all this spread out before him, knew he was going to try a case involving a guy who 95% of the women in a similar situtation as his complainant would jump in a heartbeat (apparently, so did she…)

And rich.

And her panties are full of… (well,let’s stop before the mods get me)

WAIT A MINUTE!!

I PAID FIVE DOLLARS. FUCK THE MODERATORS

full of several (several!!) guys’ come.

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I support, indeed encourage, the behavior of the complainant, right down to the time she started lyin’ on Kobe.

But as for the DA,

Where is the outrage???

2

sorry, screwed up the cite:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57467-2004Sep2.html
“For one thing, most civil cases settle before trial,” said Craig Silverman, a Denver defense lawyer and former prosecutor. “In this case, both sides have a lot to lose if they have to sit on the witness stand in federal court. And what might be a lot of money for the woman might not amount to much for a multimillionaire athlete. So everybody has a motive to get it over with.”

Lawyers for the alleged victim said she was deeply concerned when the judge in the criminal case ruled that some of her sexual history could be presented to the jury at trial. And in a civil case, much more of her background would be fair game for Bryant’s attorneys."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57467-2004Sep2.html

3

Alaric, I can’t see what the hell you’re talking about through the haze of pot smoke and innuendo. Are you claiming that the alleged victim has been making false claims? Are you blaming the prosecutor for being reluctant to get into a dirty fight over an alleged victim’s sexual history?

4

*I take refuge in the dharma of no dope talk on the straight dope express

**you betcha

***I am blaming the prosecutor for bringing a case the viability of which turned on being able to convince a judge that the rape shield laws, originally premised on the public policy benefit of avoiding the chilling effect on the reporting of real forcible rapes that was perceived to be the outcome of permitting exploration of what is, after all, not irrelevant to one of the important defenses to a rape charge, ie, consent.

In this case, the application was asserted as prospective–ie, covering not merely her sexual behavior PRIOR to the rape, which was the old fodder for defense humiliation of the complainant.

Here, the intervening events go to the integrity of evidence offered by the prosecution–ie, the rape kit and exam.

If that doesn’t open the door, what does? Yet the DA at the evidentiary hearing said judge, if the three guy’s come comes in, i’m outta here
Knowing that, he should not have filed the case,

5

Whoa, alaric, did you say three guys’ stuff was found in the girl? I knew that the DNA evidence showed that another man’s semen (not Kobe’s) was found when she showed up at the rape crisis center, clear evidence that she had had sex with another man after leaving Bryant’s room but before reporting the “rape”. But three? Do you have a cite for that, one that doesn’t require registration?

And having been on the receiving end of a false accusation of a sexual nature myself, (not on the order of rape, but still…) my response to hearing that the criminal charges against Bryant amounted to “Wooooohooooo!”

Hope she doesn’t get the civil case on, either.

6

er, make that “my response to hearing that the criminal charges against Bryant were dropped…”

7

I don’t think it was three fresh samples. The best i can figure out is that there were 2 “Fresh” ones: Kobe’s and other AND another DRIED sample (I’m not sure if that sample is different DNA from unknown “fresh” sample 2) on her panties when she was examined after the rape.

Whatever happened to safe sex…?

[/QUOTE]
…"The Times reported a forensics expert said it is nearly impossible to determine the age of semen taken in a rape examination, calling into question a defense allegation that the accuser had sex with another man less than 15 hours after she said she was raped by the Laker star.

Pete Mang, a spokesman for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, said in an interview with The Times on Tuesday that the only way to gauge of the age of semen is to test for sperm, which can remain present for about 72 hours. That would indicate the defense has no forensic evidence that proves the woman had sex after the alleged rape.

But Mang also told The Times it would be “highly unusual” for dried semen from underwear to transfer to a person’s body and be detected in a swab. That would support the defense assertion that the semen from the swab is from a different sexual episode than the semen on the underwear."
[/QUOTE]

Does this explain?

8

Alaric, I read your ‘explanation’ and I STILL have no idea what you’re on about. How is the prosectuor a scumbag? Why should there be outrage? Whatever the reason, you seem to have plenty.

9

I had difficulty, too, parsing through all of Alaric’s parenthetical and tangential statements, however, I believe the thesis is:

Eagle County DA strategy was to rely on rape shield laws excluding key evidence in order to maximize the chances of winning in civil court regardless of the outcome of the criminal trial.

Of course it’s smarmy. Didn’t it become clear in the 90’s that DAs aren’t interested in the truth any more than defense lawyers are?

Our society is suffering in many ways because there there is no longer any regard for truth or accuracy. Just power and profit. This is just another example.

10

The county taxpayer’s money going to waste would be one GOOD reason that there should be outrage.

A backwoods prosecuter wanting to make a big name for himself by rolling the dice (and wasting said taxpayer money) by putting too much faith in the rape shield law, (regardless if she had sex with someone else after the alleged rape) would make him a scumbag IMO. Holding back discovery evidence and stalling the case would be other good reasons as well.

11

I’m not following the OP at all. The fact that had sex with more than one guy doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped. You might as well be arguing that she deserved it because she was a tramp.

Once the trial was dropped, Kobe Bryant admitted he could understand why she thought the sex was not consensual. That alone shows that this isn’t a simple matter of someone running off and crying rape later, and that the sex crossed some boundary.

Bitching and complaining that the prosecution brought the case in the first place is pretty much saying that sexually active girls have no right to complain about rape.

12

Well, they ARE arguing that tramps can’t get raped. And the guy gloating above about Kobe getting off? Gave me the fucking chills. I’ve fought off one sexual attacker in my life, and been sexually harassed, and they’re out there. I can see an innocent guy being enraged. But gloating about it? Gives me the creeps. It’s like it’s a game, and the victim was the loser.

13

Alas, in my fervor, I have (not the first time) garbled the goods.

The facts as I understand them, and innocent of cites because I haven’t really paid close attention to the case.

  1. The complainant admitted to consentual vaginal intercourse and alleged that a subsequent anal echo was non consensual. Certainly not outside the competence of a jury to find as a rape.

  2. The rape allegation was made after an interval in which she had sex (after Kobe) with one boyfriend or ex boyfriend, forgive my vagueness, and (here begins thin ice) I THINK one more guy, but anyway, the rape kit panties have semen deposited AFTER Kobe’s.

  3. This was the evidence that the DA attempted to exclude under laws normally aimed at excluding evidence of stuff that happened BEFORE the alleged rape, ie, as back door “she’s a tramp, so who cares…” defence. Properly adminstered by an impartial judge (as, in fact, they were here) rape shield laws serve an important public policy purpose–the problem is that the purpose gets eaten up by the gamesmanship underlying litigation strategy so that:

when the judge told the DA that this evidence, which the da knew all along was out there, was coming in, he told the judge that if so, the case was blown.

I was inviting reflection on the metacommunication of the DA’s actions. He files a case the viability of which turns on a misapplication of these evidentiary provisions; if he gets a hanging judge, who keeps out what I would submit is highly probative evidence that at least potentially undercuts the sort of allegations of emotional trauma that buttress the credibility of a date rape allegation.

Not to put too fine a point on it if a shower is too much, at least a change of panties would speak to some sense of violation a purge of which is needed before moving serenely on to the next encounter.

So it is not the actual facts of Kobe’s encounter (which, if as described in my first paragraph, would be rape plain and simple) that I am deconstructing, so much as the williongness of the DA to take on a prosecution that ultimately blew up, and proved (in contradiction to the early protestations of the victim) to include a civil action.

14

Nobody is arguing tramps can’t get raped. But the fact that she had with at least one, possibly two :eek: men after leaving Bryant’s hotel room but before reporting the “rape” does much to damage her credibility.

Seriously, is a woman who has been raped within the previous day or so really going to be hopping into bed with the next two guys she encounters, or would she more likely not want to be touched in any kind of sexual way at all?

15

Why would the DA care about civil trial? Is the OP saying the DA is trying to get a cut???

When the criminal trial folds up like this one did, the DA looks like a fool in the press.

16

certainly if you were defending Kobe you would feel yourself seriously shabby did if the judge kept you from bringing this rather salient point tothe juries’ attention.

maybe I should expand the procedural matrix a bit.

In august the prosecution made a “motion in limine”, ie a threshold motion, to prospectively bar the defense from referring to this evidence, even though the prosecution was going to rely upon the examination at which the evidence was collected for purposes of butressing (no pun) the forcible anal allegation (I understand that few stiches were involved, bringing home theold saying, he tore her a new one…)

Now if several men had sex with her, isn’t there at least reasonable doubt which one did the damage? Granted the complainant pointed the finger at Kobe, and I believe that there may have been anatomical indices which also implicated the brother, but still, to keep out the panties and let in the exam is over the top.

As the judge ruled, and was upheld on appeal.

and at the pretrial conference before submitting the issue of letting in the panties, etc., the da, correctly said, Judge, if the jury hears about the other guys, my case is shot.

Which also was true.

I just think the da ended up being used to rachet up the squeeze onKobe, whichI assure you was settled “de facto” before all the recent public drama (think Summit Conference).

he was used beczause he did not say to Ms. X, baby, the judge will let in the evidence of the subsequent conduct, and thejury will walk kobe out thedoor.