Kobe Watch

2003-08-17T21:31:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-14T16:33:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-13T17:24:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-13T11:22:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-13T00:39:00.000-04:00

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 (*).

2003-08-12T19:49:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-09T13:35:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-09T13:29:00.000-04:00

The LA Times sports publishes these letters to the editor on the case here (*).

2003-08-08T20:15:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-08T20:09:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-08T19:46:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-08T13:32:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-08T13:07:00.000-04:00

SC Law Blog has a nice round-up of some recent developments in the case. Check it out.

2003-08-08T13:04:00.000-04:00

Here is an interview with legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on CNN (*). Toobin was in Eagle for the hearing.

2003-08-08T13:02:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-08T12:51:00.000-04:00

Here is a piece on ABC News that touches on the media coverage of the Bryant case (*).

2003-08-08T00:03:00.000-04:00

The New York Times has this piece on the case. Sorry the paucity of posts. I was away today.

2003-08-06T21:39:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-06T15:45:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-06T15:31:00.000-04:00

2003-08-06T12:44:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-06T02:05:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-06T01:43:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-06T01:36:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-06T01:25:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-06T01:16:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-05T16:11:00.000-04:00

Talkleft has the goods on the latest news in the case. (*)

2003-08-05T13:00:00.000-04:00

This piece, "Weary town gets ready for new Kobe Bryant onslaught," discusses how the town is preparing for the media circus of the hearing tomorrow. Read it while its hot.

2003-08-04T15:14:00.000-04:00

This from The NY Post (*):

Coca-Cola also has stopped running Kobe Bryant's TV commercials for Sprite, and is now focusing on Remix, a Sprite offshoot.

Scott Williamson, a Coke spokesman, said the decision was made months ago as part of the overall marketing plan.

In the days after Bryant was indicted - he has denied the charge but admitted adultery - major sponsors, including Nike, McDonald's and Sprite, said they would stand by the athlete.

"McDonald's has a relationship with Kobe Bryant, and we haven't made any adjustments to our plans because of his legal situation," Bill Whitman, a company spokesman, told The Post.

But most experts agree that privately, these companies are re-examining their Bryant-linked marketing campaigns, which would typically kick off in November in time for the NBA season.

Advertising executives said the regularly scheduled cycle of Bryant ads ended in June.

2003-08-04T13:39:00.000-04:00

Here is a detailed piece on the mysterious 911 call Kobe made. (*)

2003-08-04T13:34:00.000-04:00

Via Talkleft, Kobe Bryant has lost his first endorsement (*). Kind of that is. Nutella Chocolate Spread will not renew its contract with him in 2004. There is a catch, however: They were not going to renew the contract even before sexual assault charges were brought against Kobe. So this news is probably a non-event.

Update: ESPN has this piece on this topic. (*)

2003-08-03T23:12:00.000-04:00

The LA Times has an excellent piece on the Bryant's lawyers (*). A taste:

Both Haddon and Mackey have long track records of getting cases thrown out, charges dropped and sentences drastically reduced. They win, say colleagues, because they leave no stone unturned.

"They will check every fact, interview every witness and comb every inch of the Cordillera," Pozner said. "And they will overlook nothing."

That, says legal experts, will be their strategy — uncover every detail about the meeting between Bryant and his accuser the night of the incident down to the second. Then use information obtained by their own investigators about witnesses and the background of the accuser to develop their own theory of what happened in the room.

"They have an obligation as defense attorneys to keep their client out of jail," said Ed Nugent, a Colorado attorney who has known Haddon and Mackey for 20 years. "I have no doubt they will use whatever information they find."

So far they have said little publicly except that Eagle County Sheriff Joseph Hoy was too quick to get an arrest warrant, showing his bias against Bryant. After charges were filed, they sat calmly beside Bryant at a Staples Center news conference where he admitted infidelity but denied rape. Mackey said her client was innocent and the facts would soon bear that out.

"Criminal defense lawyers are prone to hyperbole and overstatement," said Gerald Goldstein, former president of the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers who has worked with Haddon over the years. "[Haddon and Mackey] hit the nail on the head, and they earn the respect and trust of the judge and jurors. They will not try this case in the media."

Jeralyn Merritt [author of Talkleft!], a Denver defense lawyer and commentator, described them as "media-phobic."

"Hal once took part in a media seminar with former President Clinton's lawyer David Kendall," she said. "He said it's a Catch-22. If you talk to the media you are accused of spinning, and if you don't, they think you are hiding something."

2003-08-03T22:03:00.000-04:00

David Shaw makes an interesting (although debatable) point (*):

Surely, the stigma attached to being accused of sexual assault is even worse than the stigma attached to being a victim of sexual assault. So why publish and broadcast his name and not hers? She's not a minor, and since everyone in her hometown knows who she is, just whom are we protecting her reputation from?

Indeed, it could be argued that by withholding her name, we're exacerbating, not avoiding, the stigma. I know many women who feel that way.

As my colleague Sandy Banks wrote in The Times last summer, the prohibition on identifying rape victims is "a holdover from less enlightened times," when we neither talked about rape nor wrote about it and when it was almost automatically assumed that a woman was "a party to the crime."

Read the whole thing.

2003-08-03T21:52:00.000-04:00

Here is a transcript of an ESPN radio interview with a friend of Kobe's accuser - Luke Bray. He says that he saw evidence that indicates she was the victim of an attack of sort (*). Money section:

Q: What can you tell us about the alleged victim and her demeanor and what you've found?

A: She's doing pretty well. She's been through a lot, as you may have heard. I'm pretty proud of her for what she's doing, speaking up, standing up and being tough.

Q: You've seen evidence to indicate there's physical evidence on the victim to show there was an attack of sorts?

A: That's correct. That's what I stated in the Denver Post. That's what swayed my decision. I'm a big fan of Kobe Bryant and I didn't believe it at first. Y'know I saw her, I heard her story and I was just floored, just in total disbelief."

Q: What can you tell us about it ... what you were able to see?

A: I really can't say anything about it. I can say, yeah, there's visible evidence there. ... Any other minor details beyond that, I can't tell you.

Q: Why are you coming forward to the media?

A: I was a good friend of (her) and it was mostly out of anger about people around here who live here with her who haven't seen her or talked to her and saying bad things because...I don't know, they wanted to be on TV or whatever. It was basically out of anger.

2003-08-03T18:24:00.000-04:00

Much has been said (in print, television, and radio) about this case. That’s fine with me. I have no problem with discussion of the case. Heck, that is why I set up this site—to link and discuss different threads of this case. But the some of these talking heads are irresponsible.

Take Wendy Murphy, the highly intelligent and attractive New England School of Law Professor and former sex crimes prosecutor. On the day the charges against Kobe were filed, she described the accuser on television as “a rape victim.”

Maybe evidence in the case will vindicate Murphy’s legal conclusion, but it is clearly irresponsible for her to state so at this juncture. She later said, on another show, that the presumption of innocence only applies in the courtroom and we should remember that.

This is true, but isn’t the presumption of innocence more than just about the law, but about reminding the public that it is important to give everybody accused of a crime—especially one as horrific as rape—the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are laid out in court?

In fairness, many of Kobe's defenders have been overzealous in their defense of him—calling this girl a gold digger, a slut, and other unspeakably awful epithets.

I think the best thing to do is to wait until we have all the facts as reported in respected media outlets and it looks like that will not be until trial -- which is months away. So it would be nice if the talking heads would give the rancorous speculation and specious theorizing a rest until the trial.

Meanwhile, let’s stick to the reported facts and not jump to any preconceived conclusions.

2003-08-03T17:22:00.000-04:00

Legendary Criminal Defense Attorney Roy Black had this to say on the Kobe Bryant case (*).

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Kobe Bryant's lawyers would have a tough time presenting evidence that his accuser had mental problems months before her encounter with the NBA star, legal experts say.

''The question is whether any of this is relevant to her state of mind on the night in question,'' said Florida attorney Roy Black, who won acquittal for William Kennedy Smith in a 1991 rape trial.

''If she had a disorder on that day that affected her perceptions or her emotional state, that could be relevant.''

....Black said the law is clear on one thing - the woman's prior sexual history is off limits as evidence ''unless she previously had sex with Kobe Bryant, which does not seem to be the case.''

He said defense lawyers will probably explore whether anti-depressant medication was prescribed for the woman when she was taken to the hospital and what treatment she received subsequently.

Black said a key question would be: ''If she had a problem, was she cured?''

Black, who said he has represented other NBA players in lower-profile cases settled without trial, said Bryant's case is likely to go to trial.

''Once the accusation is brought to the police it's almost impossible to settle it,'' he said. ''If he pleads guilty he loses endorsements and his popularity as a player.''

Analysis: From what Black says, it appears Kobe Bryant’s legal defense team has an uphill battle to bring in any evidence about the past of his accuser’s mental state. This strikes me as sound unless the defense can demonstrate the relevance of this evidence.

Additionally, if the accuser can corroborate her claim of rape with the testimonial evidence that she was distraught and had torn clothing when she left his room, then I think she has a strong case. (Corrections/Dissagreements are invited.)

It’s too bad now that this case will not be settled before it goes to trial to avoid the names of both parties being dragged through the mud. Heck, it is already too late for that – at least for Kobe’s accuser. As this column forcefully argues (*), Bryant has the ability to reconstruct his now blackened image. The accuser probably does not.

If anyone has any thoughts on this line of analysis, drop me a line here

2003-08-03T17:15:00.000-04:00

Arch right-wing website Newsmax reports this (*):

Fox News' Rita Cosby reported on her weekend "Big Story" program Saurday night that two hotel employees of the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera have given Eagle County, Colo., police investigators accounts that are consistent with claims made by her accuser.

One hotel employee reportedly saw the girl moments after she left Bryant's room and describer her as "shocked and upset."

Shortly after, the girl was driven home by a hotel bellman.

Cosby reports that the bellman said the girl told him she was "forced to have sex with Kobe Bryant."

The bellman also noted that the woman's clothing had been torn.

2003-08-03T16:52:00.000-04:00

Talkleft has an interesting post on the profile of the two leading attorneys in the Bryant case. They take issue with some of the points made in the article. Read it while its hot (*).

BTW, I linked to the profile in question here (*).

2003-08-03T11:12:00.000-04:00

Via Drudge, there is this report (*):

Bryant won the Choice Male Athlete award at the awards show. Bryant has been charged for alleged sexual assault by a Colorado woman and is due in court in Eagle, Colorado August 6 to face charges in the case. The awards show will be telecast on the Fox television network August 6. REUTERS/Fred Prouser

Click on the article to see a picture of Bryant with his wife.

2003-08-03T01:37:00.000-04:00

The Chicago Tribune reports:

EAGLE, Colo. -- The motels are filling up fast and restaurants are doubling their food orders in this small mountain community. The preparations are not for a business conference or a sporting event.

They are for Kobe Bryant.

Hundreds of reporters, photographers and media support crews are expected Wednesday to cover the NBA superstar's first court appearance on a felony sexual assault charge. He has said his 19-year-old accuser had sex with him willingly at a nearby resort on June 30.

It will be interesting to see how this small Colorado town accommodates an endless supply of reporters.

2003-08-03T00:54:00.000-04:00

Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen has a column on the case. Here is a clip from it (*):

For a long time -- since the William Kennedy Smith case, actually -- I've thought that the press is wrong in not revealing the names of purported rape victims. Why should this crime be the sole exception -- different, say, from a mugging that reveals the male victim to be a closeted homosexual?

The Bryant case has not changed my mind -- especially since with the Internet and talk radio, the old gentlemen's agreement about not naming victims in sex cases has broken down. But naming someone and vilifying her is a different matter. If the woman is a phony, then that will come out in court. If, however, she is truly a crime victim, then she has been assaulted twice -- once by Bryant and again in the way she's been treated.

Good point; if it turns out that Bryant in fact did rape her, then she has been raped twice - once by Bryant and once by internet thugs and a radio talk show host.

Let me just state that I think the names of the accused and accuser should either be supressed or both should be open; but I find it appalling that some people are willing to run roughshod over the law simply because they disagree with it.

2003-08-03T00:37:00.000-04:00

Here is the media's request for clarification on the broad gag order issued by the Judge in the case. Thanks to SC Law blog for the pointer. (*)

2003-08-03T00:31:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post has a profile of the two attorneys in this case -- the DA Mark Hurlbert and Pamela Mackey, Kobe Bryant's legal counsel. Here is a taste of the article:

The battle surrounding the Kobe Bryant rape trial could be described as a David-and-Goliath contest, with a young, rural prosecutor on a tight budget up against a high-powered, well-connected criminal defense firm funded by an NBA superstar's hefty purse.

In fact, the two lead lawyers in the case -- Eagle County District Attorney Mark Hurlbert, 34, and veteran Denver defense counsel Pamela Mackey, 47 -- are known for strikingly similar styles in the courtroom; both are respected by colleagues for their skill at winning trust from a jury.

And the legal resources available to the prosecution could equal what Bryant's millions can provide for the defense case.

Read the whole piece here (*)

2003-08-03T00:24:00.000-04:00

Scroll down in this MSNBC article (*) and click on the free video. Two lawyers discuss the legal issues in the case.

2003-08-03T00:13:00.000-04:00

Here is a piece which touches on Kobe Bryant's legal troubles, "Will rookies learn from NBA's summer of trouble?." Read it here (*).

2003-08-02T16:47:00.000-04:00

Note to readers:

I would be more than happy to publish some readers’ comments on the posts and/or any facet of the case. Just drop me a line at craig@craigrolle.com.

2003-08-02T16:36:00.000-04:00

ABC news has a piece (*), arguing that this case could be a replay (or, rather, the second chapter) in the defense strategies in the OJ criminal trial.

The revelation that one of the lead investigators in the case was also a key figure in a racial profiling case could provide the defense with an argument that the investigation of Bryant, a prominent black athlete, was carried out unfairly, as the defense argued in the trial of O.J. Simpson.

"I think it's explosive evidence and I'm shocked that in fact the authorities in Eagle County had this individual and these people involved in this case," said ABCNEWS legal contributor Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom, a former prosecutor. "This is shades of Mark Fuhrman and the O.J. Simpson case."

"If that investigator and the people involved in the profiling, they will be cross examined about it and it will be brought out in front of the jury, they saw them in the beginning trying to assert this was a racially biased case," she said today on ABCNEWS' Good Morning America. "Just the hint of it is damaging to the prosecution."

The Eagle County sheriff's office was successfully sued in 1995 for racial profiling of African-American and Hispanic motorists passing through the county on Interstate 70. There were 400 claims of profiling, and the department eventually paid $800,000 in the settlement.

2003-08-02T16:10:00.000-04:00

Here is a letter to the editor in the Sports Section of The LA Times on Kobe Bryant's decision to buy his wife a $4 million ring after the *%&# hit the fan, so to speak.

VIEWPOINT / LETTERS
Apparently, It's Not All About the Jewelry

Kobe, is $4 million the going price for adultery? Is that new ring enough to make up for the pain, humiliation and betrayal you inflicted on the woman who is "the air you breathe"? Is your conscience OK now?

I have a better idea. Why not take that $4 million and put plaques all over Los Angeles with the name "Vanessa Bryant" all over them? Plaques in recognition for contributing $4 million to charity. Use that $4 million to help people with autism, cancer, MS, you name it. At least something good would come out of the marital mess.

Because that ring isn't gonna work, Kobe, and I'll tell you why. Every time Vanessa looks at it, she'll remember why you bought it.

Linda Sizemore

La Crescenta

2003-08-02T16:04:00.000-04:00

The LA Times has posted a report (*) that this week's August 6th court hearing for Kobe Bryant may help his tarnished image. A taste:

The high-profile nature of the hearing could help Bryant bolster his tarnished image, especially if he brings his wife Vanessa, said Stan Goldman, professor at Loyola Law School-Los Angeles. "The fact that he is not sloughing this off might be important."

Bryant probably will respond with "yes" and "no" answers to the judge's questions and be on his way in under 30 minutes.

"In a normal case, this whole matter could take two minutes," said Craig Silverman, a former Denver prosecutor and current defense attorney. "Everybody wants a little show on Aug. 6 and apparently we're going to have one."

Then there is this clip:

Frank Jackson, a Dallas criminal defense attorney, said celebrity defendants typically skip routine hearings.

Of the judge's decision, Jackson said, "I think it's being a little heavy handed."

Gannett is likely to schedule a preliminary hearing, during which he'll determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial in state district court.

Mark August 6th on your calendar. It should be interesting.

2003-08-02T01:39:00.000-04:00

Another strange twist in the Bryant case (*). This may have nothing to do with the charges, but who knows at this point.

2003-08-01T22:05:00.000-04:00

ESPN has the goods on what the prosecution’s theory of the case will be. Here is the money quote (*) :

Those sources claim that Bryant met his alleged victim when she gave him a tour of the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera, during which he extended an invitation for the woman to come to his room later that evening, which she accepted.

The 19-year-old woman did go to Bryant's room the night of June 30, where she spent less than half an hour, according to the sources.

ABC News sources claim that the two engaged in some consensual sexual activity in Bryant's room, but that the intercourse that took place was not consensual. Those same sources say that the alleged victim sustained some physical injuries, which Eagle County

District Attorney Mark Hurlbert and his staff will use to prove that the sex was not consensual.

The woman suffered physical trauma in the vaginal area, the Rocky Mountain News reported Thursday, citing law enforcement sources close to the investigation.

According to ESPN's sources, prosecutors also believe that Bryant intentionally deceived police officers and that his statements to them were inconsistent.

Analysis: If Bryant misled the police, this strikes me as a colossal mistake on his part. It casts doubt on his credibility. As the old proverb says, “Like the thirteenth chime of a clock, which is not only wrong by itself, but casts doubt on all that came before it.”

Update: here is a piece on ESPN on the case. Check it out. (*)

2003-08-01T12:05:00.000-04:00

The LA Times reports

Following a three-hour courtroom debate, the judge in Kobe Bryant's sexual assault case postponed a decision Thursday on whether to release sealed court files.

Eagle County Judge Frederick Gannett said he did not expect to determine whether to unseal arrest and search warrants until at least Wednesday, when Bryant is scheduled to appear at the Eagle County Justice Center for a bond hearing.

Read the entire article here (*).

Elsewhere, Law Prof. Susan Estrich has a piece (*) on rape, a subject she has written on extensively. A taste:

When you tell people you've been robbed or burglarized, no one asks you what you were wearing, or looks at you differently, or sends ugly e-mail suggesting you must have been asking for it. When you tell them you've been raped, you get the second degree. Were you really raped, I would be asked, when I finally got to the point where I could talk about. As opposed to what, being not really raped?

Car thefts are the most consistently reported crime. Rape is among the most consistently underreported.

Why? Why would anyone want to go through what a 19-year-old woman in Colorado is going through right now?

If you look long and hard enough, you can find cases where women have fabricated rape claims out of vengeance, shame or scorn. Women who lie expose themselves to civil and criminal liability -- and there's no protection for names in such suits. Sue away. Sue the lawyers, too.

2003-07-31T22:01:00.000-04:00

Writing in The LA Times, T.J. Simers speculates (*) that Kobe Bryant may decide not to basketball at all play this season, so he can strictly focus on his legal problems. They dwarf his basketball career when he is facing the possiblity of spending the rest of his life in jail.

2003-07-31T21:56:00.000-04:00

Here is a piece in The Washington Post on the Bryant case. (*) Bryant wanted specific court documents sealed from the public. Key passage:

Chris Beall, representing several media organizations, argued the NBA superstar waived his right to privacy when he declared his innocence at a news conference hours after the sexual assault charge was filed.

Beall said the presumption of public access to court records is "a hallmark of our judicial system."

"Every day that goes by when the public doesn't have an opportunity to understand the evidence is a day lost under the Constitution," he said in a courtroom filed with reporters.

"The defendant has asserted that the release of the arrest warrant and search warrant affidavit will harm his right to privacy," he said. "However, the defendant has made admissions on international TV of a sexual relationship he says was consensual with the victim. That statement is a waiver of his right to privacy with respect to those facts."

District Attorney Mark Hurlbert and defense lawyers have argued the records should be withheld because publicity could affect Bryant's right to a fair trial.

Read the whole thing.

2003-07-31T21:36:00.000-04:00

In the latest edition of Sports Illustrated, there is a small article on the Kobe Bryant case (no link available). An excerpt:

Most of the new information has centered on Bryant's accusser, a former cheerleader who tried out for American Idol last year. Her name was made public by a syndicated radio host, and the Globe supermarket tabloid ran a photo it claimed was of the alleged victim with her eyes obscured by a black strip.....

Later on in the piece, there is this:

Bryant himself--who is due in Eagle County court for an Aug. 6 arraignment that will be televised live--has been mum, though his agent said Bryant would miss USA Basketball's Olympic qualifying tournament later this month as he recovers from shoulder surgery. Bryant also made news when he gave his wife a $4 million, eight-carat diamond ring, days after saying on television that he was sorry he had sex with the woman who claims she was assaulted. No one doubts he is.

Elswhere in the issue, Bill Scheft, the head monologue writer for the Late Show with David Letterman, has a little piece which mentions L'affaire Kobe.

KOBE GIVES WIFE $4 MILLION DIAMON RING I was shocked. It's not like Kobe to give up the rock.

The ring contained eight-carat purple diamond. Oh, I get it. Eight, to match his number, Purple, because it happened on the road.

The Lakers are standing behind their star. Not only that, Phil Jackson urged Kobe to hire a third lawyer so he could come up with a triangle defense.

This has has everybody on edge. Earlier today Timberwolves VP Kevin McHale and his wife held a press conference to announce that their four-way deal was consensual.

Ouch.

2003-07-31T12:43:00.000-04:00

Speaking of the piece in Slate I linked to yesterday (*), here is an excerpt. It is (to my lights) one of the best discussions of rape law in this case. It will give you a greater sense of how the rape/sexual assault laws developed to the present state.

Throughout most of Western history, penalties for rape have been excessive....Until the 1970s, no woman could prevail at trial unless she showed she'd used "utmost force" (i.e., fought the attacker to near-death) and unless she had a corroborating witness. Moreover, she could not claim her husband had raped her (husbands were immune from rape charges in most states until the late 1970s), and jurors were routinely instructed that women were liars and hysterics.

Understandably then, feminist reformers had a lot of work to do when they set out to make the system more women-friendly in the 1970s. They managed to enact state laws that actually protected—rather than victimized—the women who'd been raped. Rape shield laws saw to it that evidence of past sexual conduct was not admissible. It was no longer necessary to show bruises to prove force. Corroborating witnesses were not necessary for a conviction (which is why the accuser's testimony alone could send Bryant to prison for life). It should have been the dawn of a whole new day for womankind. But these feminist reformers also made things worse in many ways—perhaps because the feminists had a conflicting second agenda: to promote women's sexual freedom....

Victim's rights groups and law-and-order conservatives worked hard to keep sentences draconian—which is why the sanctions for rape are still so out of line with any other form of assault and why probationers and parolees are now labeled sex offenders for life. These opposing groups also worked to protect rape victims in new ways. Rape shield laws and judges who preserve the anonymity of the accuser cut against the legal presumption of innocence for defendants, make it harder for them to know and cross-examine their accuser, and otherwise give the victim privilege over the accused....

The result of all this compensating and overcompensating for the historical imbalances of rape law is that somehow the law transformed from insulting blanket paternalism to flabby ineffectual maternalism....

2003-07-31T12:28:00.000-04:00

Here is an excellent discussion (*) of the Bryant case and the role the internet has played in it so far. It reports that many newspapers have stuck to their policy of not naming the victim. Still, the internet is calling this practice into question:

Does that mean that newspapers should finally abandon their policy of not naming alleged rape victims? If the Internet is going to get the word out to the public, why should print journalists feel the need to keep the name confidential? Already, one nationally syndicated radio talk show host has revealed the alleged victim's name, leading many to believe that it will soon spread through the mainstream media.

"It is no longer practical that newspapers will be able to succeed in keeping the name out of the public domain," said Geneva Overholser, an instructor at the University of Missouri School of Journalism, who has long advocated the naming of alleged rape victims as a way to remove the stigma they face. "Not only does the existence of the Internet mean we will not be able to not name the victim, but it also means that it is time that this journalistic aberration is not appropriate."

2003-07-30T23:55:00.000-04:00

Legal Writer Dahlia Lithwick, of Slate, has an article entitled, "Rape Nuts: Kobe Bryant's trial will showcase our mixed-up rape laws." Read it here (*).

2003-07-30T23:09:00.000-04:00

Matt Drudge links to a story (*), reporting that Kobe and his accusser were only in the room together for less than half an hour. Key passage:

Sources told ABCNEWS that Bryant, 24, and the alleged victim met when he checked into the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera in Edwards, Colo., on June 30, and she gave him a tour of the facility. Bryant called the front desk from his room and asked for the woman and she went up to his room.

Sources said the alleged victim was in Bryant's room for less than half an hour. There was some consensual sexual activity between Bryant and his accuser, but the woman says she did not consent to intercourse. She sustained some physical injuries, sources said, which Eagle County prosecutors are expected to argue are indicative of sexual assault.

Read the whole thing.

2003-07-30T22:57:00.000-04:00

Via Southern California Law Blog, MSNBC has a piece (*) by Ron Borges, who writes regularly for NBCsports.com. He makes a compelling case that due to the Internet, this trial will make the OJ Simpson trial look tame—anybody with a computer and modem can read blow-by-blow accounts of the case. A sample:

By the time of the O.J. trial, though, the Internet was in full bloom and so was cable access. Judge Ito became a celebrity like Judge Judy, but with less ability to control the room where he worked. The Juice ended up on the loose because he had big money to pay big lawyers to confuse a prosecution team that made the word “inept” unworthy of their shoddy performance....

We learned more about them than we had any right or need to know. It was a circus under one tent. Kobe vs. The Cheerleader will be of the three-ring variety, because in America today we have an explosion of information in The Information Age, but we don’t a filter, any sense in our heads or the ability to understand the difference between what people say and what they know, if anything....

If a head will talk, we will listen, because this is the kind of sick society we have become. We pay more attention to the case of a baby-faced black basketball star with a pristine reputation and a 19-year-old blonde, white cheerleader-turned-hotel concierge who alleges she was sexually assaulted after delivering a very late dinner to Bryant’s room than we do to whether or not our President juiced the info he used to start a war....

Update: Again, courtesy of SC Law Blog, MSNBC reports (*) that Kobe's Wife, Vanessa Bryant, has allegedly kicked him out of the house. I guess Kobe is going to have to spend a few days (or perhaps weeks) in the woodshed. Thank goodness for Kobe's sake the weather is nice in Southern LA. Here is the money quote:

One source told NEWSWEEK Bryant’s wife has kicked him out. Whether that’s true or not, we can confirm that Bryant, his wife and his accuser will not enjoy the rest of the summer.

Indeed.

2003-07-30T22:43:00.000-04:00

I added some links to the case on the side. Please check them out. (Thanks again to Talkleft and SC Blog for the heads up.)

2003-07-30T22:25:00.000-04:00

The incomparable Talkleft has a great round-up on documents available in the Kobe Bryant case. Click here (*) to read it. It includes court rulings in the case, a link to The Southern California Law Blog, which is following the case, etc. Get it while its hot!

PS I will soon be adding some permanent links on the side to these sites and documents.

2003-07-30T21:06:00.000-04:00

An AP dispatch (*) reports the following:

The judge presiding over Kobe Bryant's sexual assault case warned reporters that they may not get a seat in his courtroom if they publish the name or photograph of the basketball star's alleged victim. Critics said the ruling may be unconstitutional.
Eagle County Judge Frederick Gannett issued the warning Tuesday as part of a three-page "decorum" order, outlining the ground rules for media planning to cover the Aug. 6 hearing and future court appearances....

New York lawyer Floyd Abrams - a First Amendment expert who represented The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case - said the judge's warning about publishing a name or photograph of the alleged victim may be unconstitutional.

"It goes well beyond what has been approved by any appellate court," Abrams said Wednesday. "The constitutional reality is that the name of the chief prosecuting witness in a case is by its nature public, not secret. This is not an undercover policeman testifying."

"I think the order is, from a constitutional perspective, deeply disturbing."

2003-07-30T17:11:00.000-04:00

ESPN reports this:

The Colorado Judicial Branch is launching a page this week devoted to the high-profile case on its Web site (www.courts.state.co.us). The page will have information on hearing schedules, motions rulings, biographies of judges and other details.

"I've had 150 calls a day. It's overwhelming,'' said Krista Flannigan, spokeswoman for the prosecutor. "It seemed like it was going to save a lot of us time. Especially as court orders come out, they just don't have the staffing to make sure the media has everything.''

Read it here (*).

2003-07-30T11:14:00.000-04:00

USA Today reports (*) that Bryant’s attorneys have requested the Court to reconsider allowing cameras in the courtroom.

Bryant's attorneys, Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon, said they were worried that publicity could affect Bryant's right to a fair trial. They said they weren't given the chance to present arguments before County Judge Fred Gannett issued his ruling on cameras last week.

They also asked for a hearing on how the media should be allowed to cover court proceedings and asked to present arguments on any feture requests for expanded media coverage.

Haddon and Mackey didn't return calls seeking comment.

Meanwhile, attorneys for media organizations filed motions to open sealed court records, saying many details have already been publicized, some by Bryant and Hurlbert.

2003-07-30T01:43:00.000-04:00

Tony Kornhesier has an insightiful piece on the case.

He is not Mike Tyson, who has a history of violent episodes. He is not Allen Iverson, who has a well-massaged reputation for living "the street life." He is not Chris Webber, who seems incapable of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He is not Rod Strickland or Damon Stoudamire or any number of Portland Trail Blazers players who seem to spend so much time in jail it's like they're on a meal plan there. No, Kobe Bryant seemed to be far better than them....

Read it here (*).

2003-07-30T01:21:00.000-04:00

Writing in The Akron Beacon Journal, Terry Pluto has this to say about Kobe (*):

Any of us who have embarrassed ourselves in any number of ways know how difficult it is to look into the eyes of one who loves you and admit our failures.

And do it without an excuse.

Bryant was sincere in stating he wished he could have that night back. We all long to have some do-overs in life.

But we don't get them.

Sometimes, we just get away with it. Others times, we don't.

The case is already turning ugly. The Orange County Register reported the woman was distraught about coming home from college and losing her boyfriend. The paper alleges she overdosed on pills and was rushed to the hospital about two months before the incident with Bryant.

There will be more reports about the alleged victim's character, sex life and mental state. Bryant didn't exactly hire the Washington Generals of the legal profession as his defense team, and they're playing to win with their legal elbows out and swinging.

The prosecution is expected to present some physical evidence that will make us squirm. The media will hang on every bit of DNA.

This trial--if it goes to trial--is shaping up to be another O.J. Simpson-like media circus. Too bad the press, as imminent left-wing law professor Erwin Chemerinsky pointed out in a piece (*) in The LA Times last week hasn't learned from its mistakes in the OJ case (read it while the link is still good):

The endless statements by fellow athletes and fans that Bryant never could do such a thing serve no purpose. None of us know Bryant or whether he is capable of rape. Endearing McDonald's commercials showing him playing basketball with children no more give us a sense of Bryant than Hertz commercials let us know whether Simpson would commit murder. The presence of celebrities in our homes on a daily basis gives us a sense that we know them, almost as friends, but all we know is the athlete's image....

Now that Bryant has admitted that he had sex with the alleged victim, the sole issue almost certainly will be on whether it was consensual or forced. The media can play a useful role in educating the public as to how this is often the case in rape trials and as to how judges and juries evaluate consent in a case like this, including the physical evidence that is presented and how conflicting accounts are handled.

Few would deny that the media's attention to the Simpson case was entirely out of proportion to the story's importance. Every national network covered, gavel-to-gavel, the preliminary hearing and the opening statements and the closing arguments at the trial; three national television and two national radio stations covered the entire trial.

On the other hand, people learned more about the legal system from the Simpson case than from any other event in U.S. history.

For months to come, the news will be filled with stories about the legal proceedings against Bryant. What people think of the legal system, and their understanding of how it handles rape cases, will be shaped by the media's coverage. Let's hope that the last trial of the century can help improve the media's handling of this one.

Excellent point.

PS If the link to the latter article doesn't work, drop me a line and I will send you a copy of it.

2003-07-30T00:59:00.000-04:00

Sports Columnist Skip Bayless, of the San Jose Mercury News, writes this in his column on the case:

But what continues to baffle me about the sexual assault case against Kobe Bryant is that I never heard so much as a whisper about him. Not a peep. No one I've talked to close to the Los Angeles Lakers had any reason to suspect he was ever anything but faithful to his wife. No

``I did hear once that . . .'' Certainly no raised eyebrows from high-profile neighbors of Bryant's about loud arguments with his wife.

An insider close to Lakers executive Magic Johnson told me: ``When Kobe was single, I used to stand outside the locker room after games and see some of the most beautiful women in L.A. all but throw themselves at him, and he'd very politely say, `No thanks, gotta get home.' ''

For a while, Bryant and his father quit speaking because, according to reports, the father thought Vanessa was too young for Kobe to marry. He married her anyway. Teammates have told stories about how Bryant always goes to the back of the team bus and spends the entire ride to the arena talking quietly to Vanessa on his cell phone.

Of course, he could have been talking to someone else. But teammates and coaches always described him as nothing but fiercely dedicated to Vanessa, their 6-month-old child and his career, pretty much in that order. Perhaps no professional athlete has ever programmed his life so completely and intensely at such a young age as Bryant. Here is a control freak.

Read the whole piece here (*).

2003-07-30T00:06:00.000-04:00

Here is a piece (*) in USA Today on the case. It touches on the role the internet has played in this case so far.

Sadly, a girl, who looks like the accuser, has been misidentified as the accuser. Her picture has been posted on the internet. Unreal. Here is a clip from the article:

The images are multiplying, and Lovell is being identified, as Webmasters swap files and ignore Matthews' requests to correct the error.

The effect on Lovell has been profound.

"It's hard knowing that when people think about Kobe's accuser, I'm the face that everyone think of," Lovell told USA TODAY in the first interview she has granted. "I feel violated. I want it to be known that these pictures aren't of the right girl, and I want them removed."
(USA TODAY has not published the name of Bryant's accuser because it does not routinely identify alleged rape victims.)

The case seems a natural for legal action, both to stop the erroneous postings and to win damages that would discourage others from disregarding the facts when they spread hurtful lies and gossip.

"If this was a newspaper doing this ... it would be a slam dunk," says Michael Krauss, a civil law specialist at George Mason University law school in Arlington, Va. Federal and state courts, he says, permit publishers to be sued for spreading "facts" that they know or should know aren't true.

2003-07-28T21:27:00.000-04:00

CNN reports that the degree of information available to the public in the Bryant trial will be adjudicated before a civil court tomorrow.

The judge this week will review written arguments about whether to make public 911 calls made during the past year from the home of the alleged victim in the Kobe Bryant case.
Police were called to her home earlier this year. The Vail Daily newspaper has sued to have the tapes made public.

Later in the article:

Also over the weekend, Kobe's lawyers were in Eagle County trying to learn all they can about the alleged victim.

No big surprise. It is going to ugly. No, it is already ugly.

Elsewhere, here a few choice excerpts from some of the top sports writers in the country on L’Affaire Kobe.

2003-07-28T16:47:00.000-04:00

USA Today has this piece on the Kobe case, "Don't expect Bryant facts any time soon," reporting that the prosecution is going to hold its cards very close to its vest until the actual trial which will not take place until this winter. A taste:

At Bryant's Aug. 6 appearance, called an advisement, the judge might set the date for the preliminary hearing. If Bryant were in custody, the hearing typically would be held within 30 days of the advisement. But Bryant is free after posting $25,000 bond July 4.

At the preliminary hearing, Hurlbert will have to present only enough evidence to convince a judge it is not a "junk case," Guarino says. The burden of proof is so minimal, Guarino says, that the evidence can include hearsay....

If the county judge presiding at the preliminary hearing, presumably Gannett, decides the evidence is compelling enough to go to trial, the case will be moved to district court. Within a week or two of the preliminary hearing, Bryant will be formally arraigned and will enter a plea. His lawyers have said he will plead innocent.

At the time of the plea, the clock starts ticking on Colorado's speedy trial law. The law ensures a trial begins within six months of the arraignment. The defendant can give up the right to a speedy trial.

"In a complex case, it is not unusual for a defense to waive rights to a speedy trial," Guarino says.

Could this trial be postponed until next summer -- way after the finish of the 2003-2004 NBA season? That is what I'd like to know.

BTW, on the sidebar of the article is some audio clips from Bryant's attorney and the DA in this case. You can listen to them. Bryant's attorney makes an impassioned plea why this case should not charges should not have been filed.

Update: Here is a report (*) in USA Today regarding the accusser's hospitilization in February. It looks like this case will get very ugly if it goes to trial. Here's a sample:

Lindsey McKinney, a former friend who lived with the woman for two months last spring, said the woman attempted suicide last winter and again in May by overdosing on sleeping pills after returning home from school.

Authorities have not confirmed that Bryant's accuser attempted suicide or that she overdosed on pills in May.

Prosecutors and an attorney for Bryant's 19-year-old accuser have declined to discuss details of the case or the background of the woman.

The Eagle County sheriff dismissed speculation by at least one of the woman's friends that she is having second thoughts about going forward with the case.

2003-07-27T23:13:00.000-04:00

Marty Burns has a piece, dated July 18th, on the Kobe Bryant case. A taste:

[Coach] Jackson moves front and center as the guy who must keep the Lakers' ship afloat. He must somehow plan two distinct L.A. teams -- one with Kobe, one without. He must convince Shaq to show up in prime shape on Day One. He must prepare the Lakers' players and staff for a media frenzy unlike anything they saw during their three-peat.

And, most of all, the Zen Master must find a way to heal Bryant’s psyche.

Kobe has shown tremendous focus and a steely will on the basketball court these past seven NBA seasons. But how well will the sensitive young superstar -- not yet 25 -- hold up with the specter of a criminal trial (and possible jail sentence) hanging over his head? Even if he gets to keep playing, it’s sure to take a toll.

2003-07-27T19:20:00.000-04:00

Talkleft has a post on Kobe Bryant's *formerly* anonymous accusser (*).

Update: Talkleft has a truckload of other posts on the Kobe Bryant case (*).

2003-07-27T19:09:00.000-04:00

Selena Roberts, of The New York Times, has a smart article (“A Feeding Frenzy on the Web Shoves Sanity Right Out the Door”) on the Internet’s role in fueling many of these sports controversies beyond the limits of legitimate discussion. She touches on the publication of the Kobe Bryant’s accusers pictures, home address, telephone, and other salacious material on the web. Key passage:

Over the past three weeks, the Kobe Bryant devotees who have defiantly defended their hero's character against sexual assault charges have turned the accuser's anonymity into a sham and her reputation into a passage fit for a bathroom wall.

Want to know her address and phone number? It's on a Web site. Want to know what four-letter descriptions are linked to her name? The filth is for the finding online.

This is why the order forbidding comment issued on Thursday by Judge Fred Gannett of Eagle County Court in Colorado is so laughable. Born of good intentions, with hope to preserve a fair trial in the midst of salacious news accounts about the accuser, Gannett wrote, "Where the case is a notorious one, that burden on the court is heavy."

The judge can hermetically seal the lips of lawyers and the police, but he cannot put a lid on the Internet stream of unfounded accusations, titillating rumors and false information pouring from the twisted minds of the only truly anonymous and protected elements of this case: the cybersnipers.

This rant-and-run activity cannot be dismissed as chat-room nonsense, not when the fans are provided instant credibility for their hyperbole when the message boards they use are linked to news establishments.

Elsewhere, The Washington Post details the nature of the crime Kobe Bryant has been charged with—a class 3 felony under Colorado law. The statute has been on the books for three years. Explains T. R. Reid:

The 3-year-old state law under which Bryant has been charged involves four degrees of sexual assault, depending on the circumstances. The most severe crime is rape accompanying a kidnapping. A "Class 2" sexual assault covers rapists who use a deadly weapon or inflict serious bodily harm to force submission. "Class 3" involves the use of physical force, violence, or threats to compel sex. "Class 4" covers sex with an unwilling partner, but not involving force.

Silverman, the former prosecutor, said District Attorney Mark Hurlbert was probably thinking strategically when he charged Bryant with the Class 3 felony.

"Class 4 assault is a lesser included offense to the Class 3 charge," Silverman says. "So the DA can ask the judge to give the jury the option of a Class 4 conviction. If the case is close, the jury may fall back on the lesser charge as a compromise. But it's not much of a compromise for Kobe. It still gets him a felony conviction and a minimum of 10 years' probation.”

Another passage in the article indicates that many of these acquaintance rape cases are decided in the favor of the plaintiff.

…the pattern in recent "acquaintance-rape" cases in this state has been for juries to side with the alleged victim, notes University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos.
"If you review the Colorado cases, you can see that the pendulum has swung toward the victim," Campos says. "You get convictions in some date-rape situations strictly on the women's testimony, with no corroborative evidence of a struggle or a contemporaneous complaint."

Not good news for Kobe.

2003-07-27T14:42:00.000-04:00

Dallas Morning News Editorial writer Rod Dreher, formerly of The NY Post and National Review, has an interesting post on the Kobe Bryant case on The Dallas Morning News' Blog. He makes an interesting analogy to the movie Capturing the Freidmans where “the guilt or innocence of the Friedmans is not all clear cut” (Dreher’s words).

Dreher then makes a superb point:

But I have to wonder why, in this day and age, any woman would go into a professional athlete's hotel room alone with him if she didn't want to have sex. Don't get me wrong, I'm not not not saying she asked for it. Still, given the massive egos of these privileged celebrities, and the reputation professional athletes have for on-the-road sexual mischief, it seems to me that a woman with any sense would steer far away from this kind of man.

This thought had occurred to me, too. Even if it comes out that Kobe Bryant raped her, I think it is a safe to say the victim exercised poor judgment by going up to his room. Let me repeat, so nobody misunderstands me. The law is very clear: If at any point, she said no and he went forward with sexual intercourse, it is legally rape. It doesn’t matter if she went up to his room naked and did cart wheels.

If one lesson can be drawn from these tragic events, it is, as Dreher writes, young women should avoid contact with celebrity athletes given how this and other incidents.

2003-07-27T00:54:00.000-04:00

The LA Times has compiled some commentary and news reports on the case against Kobe Bryant. Click here to scan through their online news gallery.

Elsewhere, the Washington Post reports that the District Attorney Mark Hurlbert’s office has received death threats and they are taking them seriously. ESPN reports that cameras will be allowed in the courtroom during Kobe’s first court appearance on August 6th. David Aldrich offers his thoughts on Kobe Bryant and Ralph Wiley does as well.

Here is a taste of Wiley’s piece:

whatever happened, happened between 11:14 p.m. on June 29 and 12:35 a .m. on June 30. A 19-year-old hotel employee goes off duty at 11 p.m. A phone call is made from Kobe's room at 11:13 p.m., apparently to the Newport Beach house where his wife Vanessa and their daughter are staying. To me, this is classic screw-around mode, not I'm-about-to-commit-a-felony mode. By calling he pre-empts the surprise call from home that will interrupt the planned festivities. Then, whatever happened happened. And by 12:36 a.m., a pay-per-view movie is ordered in Kobe's room.

Accompanied by her parents, alleged victim reports alleged assault at 12 noon June 30 to Eagle County Sheriff, is then taken to Vail Valley Medical Center to undergo tests. What's Kobe's motive? When's he had time to covet something enough to take it? And why that lag time between act and report? What happens if she mentions it, and to whom? The Kobe I know wouldn't bust a grape. When he tries to act hard, like making a rap album, or in that Sprite commercial, where he's shown working out in a boxing ring, punching into mitts held by what is ostensibly a trainer, I shake my head. It's inauthentic. My gut instinct says no. There is the 20 percent chance I could be wrong. Kobe's guilty of being stupid, not guilty of a crime, that's my gut, although I remind Kobe and all the young brothers: If you are playing with the black pieces, stupidity can become a felony, a crime punishable by jail, and even death.

Here is a taste of Aldrich's piece:

Can you think of anyone else in public life not named O.J. whose reputation before the alleged crime is such at odds with the crime itself? What makes this so unnerving is the very idea that Kobe Bryant is the person being accused of it. We will find out in the weeks and months exactly what happened in that hotel room, and it may come to pass that these are accusations without merit, attacks on an innocent man's character. But it is unlikely we will never think of Kobe Bryant the same way again.

More later...

Update: Roy Johnson, writing in CNNSI online, has a great column. An excerpt:

If we're lucky, maybe the tragedy that has embroiled Bryant and his accuser will teach our young sports superstars that none of them is immune -- no matter how gifted, no matter now rich -- to the temptations that can bring any of us down.

Maybe it will teach our young women that no superstar is worth putting on a pedestal simply because he has athletic gifts.

And perhaps it will teach us all that none of us -- especially our stars -- is as good or evil as we are perceived to be. We're somewhere in between. Somewhere decidedly human. Somewhere decidedly not invincible.

2003-07-27T00:22:00.000-04:00

This is my first post. What I am trying to do is round-up all the news reports and commentary (legal and non-legal) on Kobe Bryant's impending sexual assault case from different sources. Please send in any links you have. Now back to writing up the round-up for today.