Kobe Bryant case

[Steff]

I have mixed feelings about this....

 

If the defense can in fact prove malice beforehand like it says they are attempting to do here in this article.. what's the point about her past sexual encounters?

 

I just keep thinking how I would feel if this was someone I knew - as I knew some "fun" girls back in high school. Just because they were confortable sexually I don't think that's a reason to think they would lie about being raped... This case is so ugly.

 

 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/170350p-148622c.html

 

Her sex life will air in Kobe case

 

 

 

By CORKY SIEMASZKO

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

 

In a major victory for Kobe Bryant's defense, the 19-year-old Colorado hotel worker who says he raped her will be grilled about her sex life.

Judge Terry Ruckriegle also yesterday rejected prosecutors' request to limit what the defense can ask the accuser at a closed hearing later this month.

 

Prosecutors in Eagle County, Colo., said they will appeal to the state Supreme Court.

 

"It is about rape shield issues," said Krista Flannigan, a spokeswoman for the prosecutors, referring to the Colorado law that makes a rape victim's sexual history off limits - unless a judge decides it is relevant to the case.

 

Ruckriegle's ruling came after the woman's lawyer denied defense claims that the accuser had sex with another man the morning after the alleged rape.

 

The woman has acknowledged having had sex just two days before the alleged attack.

 

Lawyers for the 25-year-old L.A. Lakers star subpoenaed the woman hoping to convince the judge that her injuries could have been caused by sex with someone other than Bryant - and that this testimony should be allowed at trial.

 

Bryant's team is also trying to prove the woman had a "plan" to sleep with the NBA star to make ex-boyfriend Matt Herr jealous, and that she also had sex with another prosecution witnesses, bellboy Bobby Pietrack.

 

Buoyed by the judge's ruling, the normally stone-faced Bryant smiled and waved to a group of cheering children as he left the courthouse after the two-day hearing.

 

Bryant has admitted he had sex with his accuser June 1 at the Vail-area resort where she worked but insists it was consensual. He faces a maximum of four years to life in prison if convicted of rape.

[Steff]

Just for the record.. the accuser denies having sex after "sex" with Kobe.

 

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...1992546,00.html

 

Bryant's accuser denies later sex

Judge rejects limits on pretrial questions

 

By Howard Pankratz and Steve Lipsher

Denver Post Staff Writers

 

EAGLE - The 19-year-old woman who says she was raped by Kobe Bryant adamantly denied assertions by the basketball star's lawyers that she had sex with someone else just after the alleged assault.

 

In a ruling late Tuesday, however, Judge Terry Ruckriegle gave defense lawyers wide latitude by refusing to limit their questioning of the woman as requested by prosecutors.

 

The woman is expected to testify behind closed doors March 24 and 25, said Karen Salaz, spokeswoman for the state court administrator's office. Defense attorneys indicated they may need to question the accuser for more than four days.

 

After that questioning, Ruckriegle will decide how much - if any - of the woman's sexual history will be admitted at trial.

 

The accuser's denial was issued Tuesday by her attorney, John Clune, who said that sex allegations filed with Ruckriegle by the NBA star's attorneys were ludicrous.

 

The denial came as a pretrial hearing in the Bryant sexual-assault case entered its second day at the courthouse in Eagle.

 

"The claims that the victim in this case had any sexual contact with anyone within 15 hours after being assaulted by Mr. Bryant are patently false," Clune said. "Anyone trying to prove otherwise will be chasing ghosts."

 

Clune said Bryant's accuser is confident that Ruckriegle will appropriately resolve what Clune called "these rape-shield issues" and that the focus of the trial will remain on Bryant, not the accuser.

 

Bryant's defense team filed the allegation in a motion Monday, asking Ruckriegle to give them wide latitude in questioning the accuser.

 

Bryant has said the woman was a willing sex partner on June 30 when he was staying at an Eagle County resort hotel. She was a hotel employee at the time.

 

Former Denver prosecutor Phil Parrott said there is a low threshold for the amount of evidence defense attorneys are required to present in order to raise allegations that an accuser had other relevant sexual contacts.

 

"It doesn't require any grand investigation," Parrott said. "...It can be based on something you read on a sidewalk."

 

He said defense attorneys in criminal cases are obligated to put such allegations in written motions - even if they are based on rumor - if it would permit them to examine witnesses, including accusers, about information that might exonerate their clients.

 

Parrott said whether the allegation in the Bryant case should have been filed under seal is up to the judge.

 

"It is within the intent of the rape-shield law that these (allegations) could be filed under seal to prevent the public airing of what could be no more than rumor and which could have a chilling effect on the victim's willingness to cooperate," Parrott said.

 

David Lugert, an Eagle lawyer who helped draft the state's Victims Rights Act while an assistant Colorado attorney general, said the Bryant defense team violated the state's rape-shield statute by making the claims public, rather than filing them under seal.

 

Lugert said there should be no public airing of the accuser's prior or subsequent sexual conduct until a judge finds that the sexual history is relevant to a specific issue, such as if bleeding the woman suffered was caused by sexual activity with someone other than Bryant.

 

He said Clune knows that under the Victims Rights Act and the Colorado Constitution, victims are to be free "from continued humiliation, abuse and fishing expeditions into her sexual history."

 

"I'm sure he was very frustrated that her rights were not being protected," Lugert said.

 

Clune's statement came as Ruckriegle continued to hear testimony behind closed doors on whether he should allow evidence about the woman's sexual history normally deemed irrelevant under the rape-shield law.

 

District Attorney Mark Hurlbert and his prosecution team have not answered the defense allegations about the accuser's alleged sexual activity, with one exception: On Monday, Hurlbert called the defense's allegations about the woman a mixture of untrue innuendo and rumor.

 

Former Denver prosecutor Karen Steinhauser cautioned not to read too much into the defense contentions, saying Hurlbert has necessarily been restrained from countering the attacks.

 

"The prosecution doesn't have to respond in kind just so the public sees what the prosecution is saying," Steinhauser said. "They're going to make their arguments behind closed doors with regard to her sexual history and whether it's relevant and should be allowed."

 

Investigators testified at Bryant's preliminary hearing that what started out as mutual kissing and flirtation became violent when Bryant allegedly grabbed the woman by the neck and raped her.

 

Salaz said that Ruckriegle also denied a request by prosecutors that there be no rape-shield hearing.

[SuperSteve]

One thing for sure: both of their lives are f***ed (no pun intended) by all of this. IMHO I still think the sex was mutual, Kobe would have no reason to rape somebody, especially seeing that he would have had no problem finding a women to have sex with. Possibly seems like she didn't think this through very well when she filed the rape charge. If she did infact have sex the day after her encounter with Kobe, her case is over. There is no way around it. Now, if she really did get raped, Kobe better go to jail for a long time. I just can't see a reason why Kobe would need to rape her. That's just my opinion though.

[The Critic]

One thing for sure: both of their lives are f***ed (no pun intended) by all of this. IMHO I still think the sex was mutual, Kobe would have no reason to rape somebody, especially seeing that he would have had no problem finding a women to have sex with. Possibly seems like she didn't think this through very well when she filed the rape charge. If she did infact have sex the day after her encounter with Kobe, her case is over. There is no way around it. Now, if she really did get raped, Kobe better go to jail for a long time. I just can't see a reason why Kobe would need to rape her. That's just my opinion though.

I have a hard time including logical thought into rape cases.

I doubt that IF he did it, he was thinking, "I'm Kobe Bryant - I don't have to do this - I can have anyone I want".

I think IF he did it, maybe it was just a case where they were doing something, and he wanted to do something more and was all worked up, and she said no at some point, and he didn't stop.

It's really difficult to speculate about this case. There's so much we don't know, and may never know, because it was just the two of them in that room.

I just hope the truth prevails, whatever the truth might be.

[YASNY]

I just feel that Kobe, like any other defendant in this country, should be considered innocent until proven guilty.