Posted 9:31 PM by Craig
To everybody who has been reading this blog since the Kobe case broke, I have decided that I will not post reguarly until breaking news and/or the next court hearing comes up. There is just to little out there to post on right now.

Posted 4:33 PM by Craig
The Smoking Gun site reports this (*):

In a case of unfortunate timing, Kobe Bryant recently shut down a foundation
that once supported charities that aided children and treated kids who were
sexually and physically abused. Maybe the NBA star needed the spare cash to
cover his young wife's bauble needs.

Posted 5:24 PM by Craig
CNNSI reports (*):

A white supremacist group acknowledged Tuesday it left fliers around this mountain community telling whites not to have sex with blacks, and said the fliers were in response to the sexual assault case against NBA superstar Kobe Bryant.

Just when I thought this trial could not get any uglier, a bunch of white racists come out of the woodwork.

Posted 11:22 AM by Craig
This piece by Michael Wilbon is well-done (*). This passage struck me as telling about how most of us feel about the Bryant case when the story first broke:

Months ago, when it seemed dicey to even include Iverson on a U.S. basketball team charged with qualifying for the 2004 Olympic Games, most of us thought Kobe Bryant was going to be the face of Team America, his hair closely cropped, his arms and legs and neck tanned but never painted. The image of Iverson, all tattooed with his emotional laundry having been aired like sheets on a clothesline, wasn't what most of us felt comfortable with on the international stage. So weeks and weeks would go by, and Iverson would seethe quietly about not being included and we would point to Kobe and say, "He's the one we want."

And now isn't this one helluva flip-flop? Kobe is preparing to fight for his life and secondarily his image, while Iverson strikes a chord with a whole lot of folks, Americans, who feel they can fit in if only given a chance . . . okay maybe a couple of chances.

Posted 12:39 AM by Craig
The Washington Post reports (*):

EAGLE, Colo. -- If Kobe Bryant's trial for rape follows the standard schedule for Colorado felony cases, the NBA all-star could find himself in a courtroom rather than on the court next spring as the Los Angeles Lakers head into the final weeks of the NBA regular season.

At his initial hearing last week on a charge of felony sexual abuse, Bryant agreed to return to the rural courthouse here on Oct. 9 for a preliminary hearing. Generally, Colorado felony cases come to trial about five to six months after the preliminary hearing, legal experts say -- which means Bryant could be facing an Eagle County jury in March or April.

Update: Michael Wilbon has this piece on the case (*).

Posted 7:49 PM by Craig
My apologies for the paucity of posts over the past few days. I have been on vacation. I will try to round-up any new developments/analysis of the case later tonight.

Posted 1:35 PM by Craig
Tracy McGrady offers his thoughts on Bryant's situation in this interview/article (*). McGrady beat Bryant out for for the leading scorer in the NBA this past season--but not by much.

Posted 1:29 PM by Craig
The LA Times sports publishes these letters to the editor on the case here (*).

Posted 8:15 PM by Craig
Since reports indicate--perhaps wrongly--that Kobe's acusser agreed to some sexual activity

...the question of when and how the victim's consent was revoked is less important than whether her story rings true, says Craig Silverman, a Colorado defense lawyer and former Denver prosecutor. "If you ask me whether it's rape if a woman agrees to some sexual activity and then says no," said Silverman, "that depends on what any particular Colorado jury says on the subject."

This is from an article on CNN's website.

Posted 8:09 PM by Craig
I just added a permanent link to an unofficial transcript, published by a newspaper, of the August 6th hearing. Check it out. If you look on the right side of the piece, you can click on a link and watch the entire hearing.

Posted 7:46 PM by Craig
ABC News reports (*):

ABCNEWS has been told that examiners found evidence that the woman accusing NBA superstar Kobe Bryant of sexual assault had "vaginal tearing." The information comes as Bryant prepares for a court appearance today in which he will be read the formal charge in the case against him.

Several sources familiar with the case also told ABCNEWS that the accuser has alleged that she tried to leave Bryant's hotel room and he blocked the door. The sources said that the sheriff's original arrest warrant included a misdemeanor claim of false imprisonment.

Posted 1:32 PM by Craig
ECHOES OF OJ: A fascinating piece on how whites and blacks see the Bryant case differently. (*) An excerpt....

the survey also shows that black and white respondents differ significantly about the case, mirroring past racial splits over the legal troubles of former football star O.J. Simpson and boxer Mike Tyson.

This week's poll of 1,003 adults found 41% think the felony charge against the Los Angeles Lakers guard is "definitely" or "probably" true, while 38% say it is false. They were questioned by telephone Monday through Wednesday. The poll has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points.

But more than two-thirds of blacks in that sample and in an identical poll July 25-27 said they think the charge is false. About one-fourth believed it is true. Whites in the two polls were about evenly split.

Forty percent of whites also said they were "very" or "somewhat" sympathetic toward Bryant. Nearly two-thirds of blacks were sympathetic.

Post Script: Here is the Polling data.

Posted 1:07 PM by Craig
SC Law Blog has a nice round-up of some recent developments in the case. Check it out.

Posted 1:04 PM by Craig
Here is an interview with legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on CNN (*). Toobin was in Eagle for the hearing.

Posted 1:02 PM by Craig
CNNSI has a report on how the Lakers organization is going to modify how it deals with the media with the Bryant case starting this season. A morsel (*):

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The Los Angeles Lakers are considering changing the way they deal with the media this season because of the circuslike atmosphere the Kobe Bryant case figures to create.

Team spokesman John Black said Thursday the team might make adjustments, including the possibility of traveling with two public relations representatives on road trips rather than one.

The Lakers don't have many answers concerning Bryant's plans for training camp, and even those who can talk about Bryant were keeping quiet or not saying much in the aftermath of the 24-year-old star's brief appearance in an Eagle, Colo., courtroom on Wednesday.

Posted 12:51 PM by Craig
Here is a piece on ABC News that touches on the media coverage of the Bryant case (*).

Posted 12:03 AM by Craig
The New York Times has this piece on the case. Sorry the paucity of posts. I was away today.

Posted 9:39 PM by Craig
KOBE IN COURT: I thought Kobe acquitted himself very well in court. He was nicely dressed in a white suit; he made a point of helping his defense attorney out of the car when they arrived at the courthouse—a nice touch to convey to the public that he is not a monster. (*)

The 24-year-old Los Angeles Laker star stood quietly and showed no emotion as his attorneys waived his right to be formally advised of the felony assault charge.

Bryant's attorneys also waived their client's right to a preliminary hearing being held within 30 days. When Gannett asked Bryant whether he objected to the decision, the NBA player said, "No, sir" -- his only words in court during the seven-minute hearing.

Given the breaking news that Arnold Schwarzenegger will run for governor of California, I wonder if L’Affaire Kobe will be partially crowded out in the coming months by the recall effort. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Posted 3:45 PM by Craig
Here is an excert from Law Prof. Dorf's piece on the case in today's Find Law Legal Commentary. (*) He nicely explains the Supreme Court precedent in this case in regards to the question of whether the Judge can punish media outlets for publishing the name of the accusser:

Can the Media Be Punished for Revealing the Identity of the Alleged Victim?

The U.S. Supreme Court last addressed the issue of secrecy for an alleged rape victim's identity in the 1989 case of Florida Star v. B.J.F.

At issue there was a Florida law that prohibited major media outlets (what the statute called "any instrument of mass communication") from printing, publishing or broadcasting the name of an alleged victim of a sexual offense. The Florida Star had nevertheless printed a rape victim's name, and a jury had ordered the newspaper to pay $100,000 in damages.

But the Supreme Court voided the civil damages award. It held that the paper had a First Amendment right to print public information that it had obtained "from judicial records which [were] maintained in connection with a public prosecution and which themselves [were] open to public inspection."

Florida Star and every other case posing the issue that has come before the Supreme Court resulted in victories for the media. Yet the Court has consistently declined to adopt a categorical rule that would give news organizations an absolute right to disseminate an alleged rape victim's name--leaving open the possibility that in some circumstances, a gag rule could be upheld.

The Court's cases make reasonably clear, however, that where an alleged rape victim's name is a matter of public record--as in Florida Star, and in the Bryant case--the media may not be barred from disseminating it.

Under the Court's precedents, a law infringing on press freedom must be precisely suited to advance a very important interest. A rape victim's privacy may count as a very important interest. However, the Court has said that gagging the press is too imprecise an instrument for advancing that interest when the state does not also take other measures to ensure the victim's privacy.

The Court's logic appears to be that once a victim's name is available at all--for example, on a police crime blotter or a website--the interest in privacy has been forfeited, and so a gag rule cannot thereafter be justified.

This is a peculiar argument. To take the Bryant case as an example, it's true that the name of Bryant's accuser has appeared on various websites and was used by a radio talk show host. Nevertheless, most people who have not actively sought the name still don't know it.

Thus, to say--as decisions like Florida Star do--that the accuser has no remaining interest in privacy is a little bit like saying that someone whose house has been burglarized in the past has no interest in protecting her remaining property from further burglaries.

However, peculiar or not, that's the law. As a result, Judge Gannett's threat to oust media representatives whose organizations reveal details about the accuser and others is unconstitutional.

It makes no real difference that Judge Gannett proposes to ban reporters from the courtroom rather than impose a civil damages award, as in Florida Star itself. Banishment would clearly be meant as punishment, and a judge cannot punish the press for exercising its constitutional rights, no matter what form the punishment takes.

Posted 3:31 PM by Craig
ABC News reports (*):

ABCNEWS has been told that examiners found evidence that the woman accusing NBA superstar Kobe Bryant of sexual assault had "vaginal tearing." The information comes as Bryant prepares for a court appearance today in which he will be read the formal charge in the case against him.

Posted 12:44 PM by Craig
Bryant will appear in Court today at 6pm Eastern Time. The cable shows report that it was scheduled later in the day to allow other people who had business before the Court to get in and out before the media frenzy surrounding this case grew. It makes sense.

The New York Times has this piece on the Bryant case, "With Bryant in Court, Marketers Might Flee." (*) An excerpt:

Kobe Bryant was what risk-averse marketers crave: a spectacular, Jordanesque ballplayer who did not get into trouble. He was a star for the Los Angeles Lakers, McDonald's, Sprite and until a year ago, Adidas. And his face adorned the label of Nutella, a hazelnut-chocolate spread with his endorsement: "Try Kobe's favorite."

In late June, he signed a five-year deal with Nike with a value estimated at $40 million, but the news quickly turned sour two weeks later when he was arrested in Colorado and later charged with sexually assaulting a 19-year-old employee of the resort where he was staying. He is free on $25,000 bond.

Now, Bryant is in legal and career limbo. He faces his first court hearing today, and the very real possibility that even if he is found not guilty, the erosion of his image will force the companies he endorses to cut their ties to him.

Posted 2:05 AM by Craig
CNNSI reports that defense lawyer in the case are trying to stem police leaks (*):

EAGLE, Colo. (AP) -- Kobe Bryant's lawyers asked a judge Tuesday to punish any law enforcement officers who discussed the sexual assault case with news reporters in violation of a court order.

The lawyers asked Eagle County Judge Frederick Gannett to schedule a hearing so law enforcement officers could be questioned under oath about any comments they made.

The motion came on the heels of news reports in the past week that quoted anonymous sources who described reported injuries to Bryant's accuser and the amount of time she spent in Bryant's room. The sources also said Bryant gave inconsistent statements to law enforcement officials.

Posted 1:43 AM by Craig
T.R. Reid, who has done an amazing job covering the case for The Washington Post , has this piece today (*). A sample:

EAGLE, Colo.

Mayor Roxie Deane picked up her newspaper the other day and saw a front-page story reporting that NBA superstar Kobe Bryant had bought his wife a $4 million diamond ring as a peace offering. "And I thought, 'Four million dollars -- that's about twice as much as the annual budget for this whole town!' " Deane said. "We are living in different worlds."

The mayor has a point. When Bryant comes to the rural courthouse in this mountain village Wednesday for the first hearing on the felony sexual assault charge filed against him, he will find himself in a world far removed from the glitter of a multimillionaire athlete's pampered life in Los Angeles.

Posted 1:36 AM by Craig
Salon has a piece entitled, "Sports stars, sex and stalkers." (*)

Sports stars are reluctant to talk about it to outsiders, but hundreds of them undoubtedly are watching the opening acts of the Kobe Bryant case with a certain amount of educated dread. Like us, they don't know what happened. Unlike us, though, they know the thrill of daily opportunity and casual sex, but also the danger that comes with it -- the liaisons that can tear a family apart, the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, the threats of blackmail.

It's easy to view Kobe Bryant as another spoiled brat jock who believes he can play outside the rules of law and marriage. Especially to those inside the sports culture, it might be easy to see this as just another case of a woman setting up a celebrity. Certainly, though, it is a cautionary tale about power, and the sexual paradox that is sometimes found in the halls -- and bedrooms -- of power. It's not unlike the affair of President Clinton with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Perhaps Clinton was just another powerful, horny man looking to score with a naive young woman who admired him. Perhaps Monica was the conniving young temptress with "presidential knee-pads" looking a little bit of love and a big place in history.

Posted 1:25 AM by Craig
Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, had this to say on the Kobe Bryant case:

From a business perspective, it's great for the NBA. It's reality television, people love train-wreck television and you hate to admit it, but that is the truth, that's the reality today.

In reply, NBA commissioner David Stern said in a statement:

Any suggestion that there will be some economic or promotional benefit to the NBA arising from the charge pending against Kobe Bryant is both misinformed and unseemly. That idea does not reflect the views of the NBA, NBA owners generally, or others associated with our sport.

Analysis: I thought Stern handled this well. Cuban should keep his mouth shut. Sorry Mavericks fans.

Posted 1:16 AM by Craig
Here are a few pieces on the case that caught my attention:

This report in the Boston Globe. (*)

EAGLE, Colo. -- The judge in the Kobe Bryant case yesterday rejected the NBA star's request to keep cameras out of the courtroom during his first court appearance on a sexual assault charge.

Bryant's attorneys argued against allowing cameras during the hearing scheduled tomorrow, saying they could jeopardize Bryant's right to a fair trial.

Then there is this piece, written right after Bryant was first charged with rape, by Professor Dorf. The opening (*):

The similarities between the Kobe Bryant case and the O.J. Simpson case are obvious. An extremely popular athlete-one of such superstar status that his last name need not be uttered to identify him to millions of fans-stands accused of a heinous crime. A media circus ensues.

Yet there is a profound difference between the cases, as well. The Simpson prosecution was a classic "whodunit": No one denied that someone had murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. The issue in the case was whether that someone was O.J. Simpson.

By contrast, the Bryant prosecution is a "what was done" case. Bryant admits to having sex with his accuser (as I shall call her, because her identity has not been made public) in a Colorado hotel room. He says it was consensual; she says it was not. There is no suggestion that somebody other than Bryant may have raped the accuser.