cwsox Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Its admissable and will be allowed, believe me. please then - since you have the facts - how it is admissable under court rules or case law, specifically those under the rape shield law - I don't want your opinion, I want the legal citations as well as a little bit about your legal credentials - as example, I am a member of several sections of the Michigan State Bar Association - please state the facts and legal citations - not your opinions - that underlie your statement because I do not believe you on this at all and in a legal proceeding you are left to show your legal proofs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 21, 2003 Author Share Posted July 21, 2003 please then - since you have the facts - how it is admissable under court rules or case law, specifically those under the rape shield law - I don't want your opinion, I want the legal citations as well as a little bit about your legal credentials - as example, I am a member of several sections of the Michigan State Bar Association - please state the facts and legal citations - not your opinions - that underlie your statement because I do not believe you on this at all and in a legal proceeding you are left to show your legal proofs cw, you brought up a great point and I did a little research looking for such case law to support the relevance of a witnesses "stability" in a matter such as this. I was unable to find any ruling in any of the 50 states, as well as federal court (supreme court appeals - 21 rape cases since 1998) where the "mental stability" of the witness was called into question and used as the primary defense. Several attempts, but not 1 was allowed. I'm sure there are a few cases out there (with 1365 rape cases being filed since 1998) that have been able to enter some "stability & credibility" evidence.. but not one where the case was based solely on that. If he doesn't get a change of venue, he's screwed. This is the girls only strike.. and to be honest.. after just loosing her best friend I wouldn't be surprised if a jury has sympathy for her. BTW, sources are FindLaw.com and CourtTV.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 please then - since you have the facts - how it is admissable under court rules or case law, specifically those under the rape shield law - I don't want your opinion, I want the legal citations as well as a little bit about your legal credentials - as example, I am a member of several sections of the Michigan State Bar Association - please state the facts and legal citations - not your opinions - that underlie your statement because I do not believe you on this at all and in a legal proceeding you are left to show your legal proofs cw, you brought up a great point and I did a little research looking for such case law to support the relevance of a witnesses "stability" in a matter such as this. I was unable to find any ruling in any of the 50 states, as well as federal court (supreme court appeals - 21 rape cases since 1998) where the "mental stability" of the witness was called into question and used as the primary defense. Several attempts, but not 1 was allowed. I'm sure there are a few cases out there (with 1365 rape cases being filed since 1998) that have been able to enter some "stability & credibility" evidence.. but not one where the case was based solely on that. If he doesn't get a change of venue, he's screwed. This is the girls only strike.. and to be honest.. after just loosing her best friend I wouldn't be surprised if a jury has sympathy for her. BTW, sources are FindLaw.com and CourtTV.com Good info there Steff, but despite everything we know so far, I don't see him getting convicted, but hopefully I'm wrong if he is indeed guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 21, 2003 Author Share Posted July 21, 2003 Good info there Steff, but despite everything we know so far, I don't see him getting convicted, but hopefully I'm wrong if he is indeed guilty. With what we've heard so far.. I agree. Not a good chance at all. But that's the way it should be. Nothing should come out until the prelim. But like I said the other day.. that DA looked scared s***less. I think the reason he held off on charging him was because he wanted an air tight case. He consulted with law enforcement around the state. They all agreed he should proceed. I don't see that many people agreeing and there not being some ace in the hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 please then - since you have the facts - how it is admissable under court rules or case law, specifically those under the rape shield law - I don't want your opinion, I want the legal citations as well as a little bit about your legal credentials - as example, I am a member of several sections of the Michigan State Bar Association - please state the facts and legal citations - not your opinions - that underlie your statement because I do not believe you on this at all and in a legal proceeding you are left to show your legal proofs Just watch and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Just watch and see. I do this for a living. I have assisted on prosecutions, I have assisted on the defense of the accused, I have assisted on legal assistance to the victim, I have assisted on civil suits for the victim, I have assisted on obtaining PPOs for the victim I have assisted on getting PPOS dismissed by the accused/perpetrator I don't have to "wait and see" A woman is no less raped if she once had an OD and the judges get very unhappy if those things are brought up in camera and foolish the lawyer who risks raising those issues in court without prior ruling by the judge in camera that the statement goes to the culpability - by smugly right since no one can prove or disprove a "wait and see" but the law is the law and it is different in real life than what the person outside of the law sees in a few celebrity trials or highly televised proceedings wait and see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Working in a law office does not make you understand the law better than me. Its up to the judge, you are right about that, but he or she could very well allow it. All any of us can do is wait and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Be Good Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Working in a law office does not make you understand the law better than me. Its up to the judge, you are right about that, but he or she could very well allow it. All any of us can do is wait and see. BMR, its 7:22 am and ya just posted about 40 minnutes again........BMR did ya a late knight yesterday BE GOOD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 BMR, its 7:22 am and ya just posted about 40 minnutes again........BMR did ya a late knight yesterday BE GOOD Couldnt really sleep. SLept about an hour and then i went walking. Too wound up over my move. Plus other things going on that are on my mind. probably gonna lay down and watch a movie sleep for awhile now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Working in a law office does not make you understand the law better than me. Its up to the judge, you are right about that, but he or she could very well allow it. All any of us can do is wait and see. if working in this profession for a number of years gives me no better understanding of the law than you, than why not walk into any law office and get a job? After all, you understand it with the equilivance of 16 years experience and have somehow obtained all the understandings that I have through working and seminars and study. Does that hold true for other professions? Does the fact that you have never worked in any profession mean that you know as much as those in that profession? Why not get a job as a doctor then - or a cpa - mabe CFO or CEO somewhere - mabe GM of a baseball team - or take your state's bar exam and pass that - any profession! The world is yours! You know it all! The judge makes the call but is bound by court rules and case law and statute law. I know you know the differences between all those and your reluctance to post citations and establish your proofs is only because of your supreme understanding of all things on which you have an opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 if working in this profession for a number of years gives me no better understanding of the law than you, than why not walk into any law office and get a job? After all, you understand it with the equilivance of 16 years experience and have somehow obtained all the understandings that I have through working and seminars and study. Does that hold true for other professions? Does the fact that you have never worked in any profession mean that you know as much as those in that profession? Why not get a job as a doctor then - or a cpa - mabe CFO or CEO somewhere - mabe GM of a baseball team - or take your state's bar exam and pass that - any profession! The world is yours! You know it all! The judge makes the call but is bound by court rules and case law and statute law. I know you know the differences between all those and your reluctance to post citations and establish your proofs is only because of your supreme understanding of all things on which you have an opinion. Watch and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 anything you say Mr. Know It Alll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 If anyone is interested. She's a former choir singer... oye ve!! http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/sports/6340428.htm Also, supposedly the girls father is a billionaire. Majority stockholder in Boeing and Lockheed. And Jim Gray from ESPN as well as some of the girls friends were on LKL. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/18/lkl.00.html Pretty interesting and detailed forensics stuff. And it appears it's not just he said, she said. Blood, torn clothes, skin under her nails.. etc, etc. Not good. Hey to me the most important thing you said is her father is a billionare. If thats the case, where would her motivation be to lie? How is her father being a billionaire relevant to her? Can't she still desire to be in the limelight? And what better way to get into the limelight than f***ing Kobe Bryant and then accusing him of rape? And I'm very glad her family has money. Hopefully if this is all a BS lie, Kobe can sue her for defamation of character and get back any endorsement money that he may lose from this fiasco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 It's too bad her dumb friend had to open her mouth. Why? Do you want a possibly innocent man to go to prison for life for a crime he didn't commit? If the story is true, yeah, damn that friend of hers for being honest and allowing the truth to come out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Why? Do you want a possibly innocent man to go to prison for life for a crime he didn't commit? And you know this is fact because you were there right? What about the prosecution witnesses that have come forward who occupied the room next to Bryant on the night in question and called hotel security because a woman was screaming for help in Bryant's room? What about the witnesses and hotel security that saw this girl crying outside Bryant's room immediately following the incident in question? The facts of the case will come out in court. Quit spouting off like you know exactly what happened because you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 21, 2003 Author Share Posted July 21, 2003 CK.. you are a cop, right..? I think you are... and if you are, have you ever seen the Rape Shield law in action..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Why? Do you want a possibly innocent man to go to prison for life for a crime he didn't commit? And you know this is fact because you were there right? What about the prosecution witnesses that have come forward who occupied the room next to Bryant on the night in question and called hotel security because a woman was screaming for help in Bryant's room? What about the witnesses and hotel security that saw this girl crying outside Bryant's room immediately following the incident in question? The facts of the case will come out in court. Quit spouting off like you know exactly what happened because you don't. Did you not read when I said "possibly" innocent? Just like most everyone here, I have a "guilty" or "not guilty" in my head, but that of course can change. Everything that I've heard so far points to "not guilty" IMO, but, we'll have to wait and see what evidence the DA supposedly has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 anything you say Mr. Know It Alll Never said i know it all. Im just very confident in my knowledge. If I end up being wrong, you will be the 1st person I seek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 CK.. you are a cop, right..? I think you are... and if you are, have you ever seen the Rape Shield law in action..? I am and I have seen the law in action. It was designed for guys that think like Clu really. You know, the guys that think just because a woman comes up to their room or wears a short skirt and tiny shirt showing cleavage that they are somehow "entitled" to sex and that, since the girl is wearing sexy clothes and came to my place, she must have wanted sex in the first place right? The laws were written because, prior to the Rape Shield, rape trials commonly became a trial of the victim and not the accused. I mean, we see that right here on this board. That's all the Rape Shield Laws really are..... protection for the victim. Why some think that what a woman has done in the past is relevant in rape cases is really lost on me..... unless the woman has a history of crying rape (and this is EXTREMELY rare). And in most of these cases, police are able to clear the complaint because of lack of evidence and, eventually, the victim stops cooperating with the police in almost all of the "victim accusations." But the trial becoming a court of the victim in the past is not hard to believe given the fact that most judges, at the time before the Rape Shields, were men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Why? Do you want a possibly innocent man to go to prison for life for a crime he didn't commit? And you know this is fact because you were there right? What about the prosecution witnesses that have come forward who occupied the room next to Bryant on the night in question and called hotel security because a woman was screaming for help in Bryant's room? What about the witnesses and hotel security that saw this girl crying outside Bryant's room immediately following the incident in question? The facts of the case will come out in court. Quit spouting off like you know exactly what happened because you don't. Did you not read when I said "possibly" innocent? Just like most everyone here, I have a "guilty" or "not guilty" in my head, but that of course can change. Everything that I've heard so far points to "not guilty" IMO, but, we'll have to wait and see what evidence the DA supposedly has. Stop it. By your posts it is obvious you think Bryant is 100% innocent, that what happened was this girls fault, and that this is a huge set-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 I am and I have seen the law in action. It was designed for guys that think like Clu really. You know, the guys that think just because a woman comes up to their room or wears a short skirt and tiny shirt showing cleavage that they are somehow "entitled" to sex and that, since the girl is wearing sexy clothes and came to my place, she must have wanted sex in the first place right? The laws were written because, prior to the Rape Shield, rape trials commonly became a trial of the victim and not the accused. I mean, we see that right here on this board. That's all the Rape Shield Laws really are..... protection for the victim. Why some think that what a woman has done in the past is relevant in rape cases is really lost on me..... unless the woman has a history of crying rape (and this is EXTREMELY rare). And in most of these cases, police are able to clear the complaint because of lack of evidence and, eventually, the victim stops cooperating with the police in almost all of the "victim accusations." But the trial becoming a court of the victim in the past is not hard to believe given the fact that most judges, at the time before the Rape Shields, were men. LMAO. "Guys who think like me?". Dude, if Kobe raped her, I think he should die. I've said many times on here that rape is worse than murder, and if he ripped her clothes off and raped her, he should fry for it. At the same time, if she's making these charges up for whatever reason, she should pay dearly for it. But at this point, hearing some of the stuff about this girl, I just don't see it as rape. LIKE I SAID, the evidence has yet to be made public, so for all we know it could be cut and dry that he's guilty. It's ALL speculation at this point, and on a message board, that's what we're going to do -- speculate and give our opinions and thoughts. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to liken me to a rapist just because I happen to be siding with "not guilty" as of July 21, 2003 at 9:10 am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 21, 2003 Author Share Posted July 21, 2003 I am and I have seen the law in action. It was designed for guys that think like Clu really. You know, the guys that think just because a woman comes up to their room or wears a short skirt and tiny shirt showing cleavage that they are somehow "entitled" to sex and that, since the girl is wearing sexy clothes and came to my place, she must have wanted sex in the first place right? The laws were written because, prior to the Rape Shield, rape trials commonly became a trial of the victim and not the accused. I mean, we see that right here on this board. That's all the Rape Shield Laws really are..... protection for the victim. Why some think that what a woman has done in the past is relevant in rape cases is really lost on me..... unless the woman has a history of crying rape (and this is EXTREMELY rare). And in most of these cases, police are able to clear the complaint because of lack of evidence and, eventually, the victim stops cooperating with the police in almost all of the "victim accusations." But the trial becoming a court of the victim in the past is not hard to believe given the fact that most judges, at the time before the Rape Shields, were men. Thanks for the info CK. Now from reading the law again.. it does not protect "habitual" accusers, correct? I know it does not specify, but since court filings are public record, if a woman has accused someone falsly in the past it is my understanding that can be brought up. Interesting FYI though.. I have not found ONE filing of case law where an accuser accused more then once. One more.. the statistics say that more then 47% of rapes go unreported. That is scary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 LMAO. "Guys who think like me?". Dude, if Kobe raped her, I think he should die. I've said many times on here that rape is worse than murder, and if he ripped her clothes off and raped her, he should fry for it. At the same time, if she's making these charges up for whatever reason, she should pay dearly for it. But at this point, hearing some of the stuff about this girl, I just don't see it as rape. LIKE I SAID, the evidence has yet to be made public, so for all we know it could be cut and dry that he's guilty. It's ALL speculation at this point, and on a message board, that's what we're going to do -- speculate and give our opinions and thoughts. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to liken me to a rapist just because I happen to be siding with "not guilty" as of July 21, 2003 at 9:10 am. I'm not likening you to a rapist. I'm likening you and your thinking about this girls past and it's "relevancy" to this case to the majority of guys I have come across in rape cases. Tell me this..... What does this girls past, and what she has done in the past, have to do with what happened in that hotel room THAT NIGHT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Thanks for the info CK. Now from reading the law again.. it does not protect "habitual" accusers, correct? I know it does not specify, but since court filings are public record, if a woman has accused someone falsly in the past it is my understanding that can be brought up. Interesting FYI though.. I have not found ONE filing of case law where an accuser accused more then once. One more.. the statistics say that more then 47% of rapes go unreported. That is scary. Gee, I wonder why Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 Stop it. By your posts it is obvious you think Bryant is 100% innocent, that what happened was this girls fault, and that this is a huge set-up. I've never said Kobe is 100% innocent. He's guilty of adultery. To me, that's not 100% innocence. But, in regards to the charge of sexual assault, yes, I do think he is innocent. So shoot me. Show me where I said it was the girl's fault. If he raped her, she put herself in a bad situation by going to his room, BUT it's not her fault that it happened. Also, if it was consentual sex like Kobe stated, it's nobody's fault...it's just something that happens far too often in this country. And I've NEVER said this is a set-up. That implies that the DA, sheriff, and the girl collaborated and made this whole thing up and then carried it out. I do, though, think that it's a strong possibility that this girl is taking a consentual act and turning it into rape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.