Kobe's Defense starts in sewer, aims lower

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Oct 10, 2003.

  1. The prelim hearing in the trial of the century removed any lingering doubts as to Kobe's defense tactics. His female attorney went straight into full slime mode, basically using the time-honored defense that the alleged victim was a tramp who asked for it.

    To get this ugly this early can only mean the defense knows the prosecution has a powerful case and that Kobe is facing likely conviction. Their slime attacks no doubt are intended to pollute the potential jury pool, as some of the defense lawyer's questions in the prelim would probably not be allowed at trial. They may also believe they have a chance of deterring the victim from continuining if they can make it as horrible as possible for her.

    The judge is also going to be tested, and so far he seems to not be up to it. Kobe's lawyer violated his instruction not to use the victim's name six times, and received only a warning for this act of defiance. Plenty of judges would have found her in contempt the second time and had her tossed in a cell the third time.

    I suppose the defense lawyers think they can contrast Kobe's previously squeeky clean image with their degrading portrayal of the victim. I think that could prove difficult and their strategy has a high chance of backfiring.

    Rape Case

    Friday, October 10, 2003; 2:08 AM

    By Judith Crosson and Ellen Miller

    EAGLE, Colo. (Reuters) - The gloves are off in the Kobe Bryant rape case.

    The preliminary hearing on Thursday had been expected to last no more than five hours and many legal experts had predicted the Los Angeles Lakers basketball player would waive it altogether.

    Instead, the defense launched an all-out effort to cast the 19-year-old accuser in the worst light possible.

    The young woman who said Bryant raped her on June 30 at a posh Colorado resort where she worked as a concierge did not have to testify at Thursday's hearing.

    But Bryant's attorney Pamela Mackey cross-examined prosecution witness detective Doug Winters aggressively, suggesting that injuries to the accuser may have been the result of her having "sex with three men in three days."

    "It's serious mud. But the question is will it stick?" asked former chief deputy district attorney for Denver, Craig Silverman.

    Eagle County Judge Frederick Gannett ordered all the attorneys to come to his chambers after the "sex with three men" comment.

    After 45 minutes the parties re-entered the courtroom and the judge said the preliminary hearing -- held to determine if the defendant should be put on trial -- would continue on Wednesday next week.

    The 25-year-old basketball star has maintained his innocence, saying he had sex with the woman in a consensual encounter.

    Winters told the preliminary hearing that the woman gave Bryant a tour of the resort, flirted with him and entered his hotel room.

    After several minutes of kissing, he started groping her breast and she became uncomfortable, Winters said.

    But when she tried to leave the room he blocked her way, grabbed her neck with both hands, pushed her over the back of a chair and raped her, the detective said, quoting the woman's account. Winters also said blood was found on the woman's underwear.

    Norm Early, a former Denver district attorney, said outside the courtroom that the woman's account would cast doubt on Bryant's consensual sex defense.

    "You have two people flirting with each other. You'd expect their first sexual contact wouldn't be over the back of a chair. That doesn't ring true to me," Early said.

    He said he was shocked by Mackey's "sex with three men" question. "It's throwing it out just to smear the woman," Early said.

    Mackey had already appeared to have broken the judge's decorum order by using the accuser's name six times in the courtroom while questioning Winters.

    She apologized each time and once said: "I'll write myself a note," prompting the judge to respond: "Or I can go get the muzzle."

  2. Here is the bigger question: Is Kobe guilty or innocent????

    we don't know yet for sure, but a good gauge of his innocence will be when they get desperate enough ot pull the ol' RACE card and start asking wether this guy " Winters" ever used the N word...stay tuned ...this thing may make OJ look like the People's court by the time they are through....still can't believe the Defense attorney suggested she had sex with three different men on three different days.:eek:
  3. agree completely - disgusting not only professionally, but morally as well. at best, this type of "lawyering" is meant to damage the accuser or as some kind of lame PR tactic, but is irrelevant to the charges - whether she had sex with 3 or 300 guys doesn't mean it's legal to rape her.

    equally incorrect is the national media helping the sleazy defense lawyer by broadcasting the same garbage as front-page "news".
  4. If it is true that the victim had sex with two other guys in the two days previous to the incident, then it is an important item to point out. In the context of the specific charge, ie: vaginal bruising, this is crucial to Kobe's defense that it was consentual. Plus, the cop was making Kobe out to be a monster, and you can understand how a defense attorney can get when they think their client is being set up... especially when a police officer was a friend of the victim.

  5. ...and it is also true that if she had sex with a donkey she would also have tearing....the point was , the Defender had no proof of this and quite frankly , if she did, and she brought those guys forward, i will bet anything the Prosecutor would have asked the judge for a delay and would want to talk quick settlement with her....an interesting aspect though that has gone largely unnoticed is the face that she " lifted up her skirt voluntarily to show Kobe her tattoo on her back"....this is NOT a good thing for the prosecutor especially if you have conservative mid-west ladies in their 60's as jurors or even a young male.
  6. It's a preliminary hearing. If she had this evidence it would be smart to go to trial and win. Plus Kobe already said that there will be no settlement and that it was absolutely a consentual encounter.

  7. give me a break....If her allegations were remotely true....I'll tell you what, if she had sex the night before with another man....the prosecution would be looking for a way out and would certainly not be looking to get this to court so quickly....KOBE has already been caught LYING......He told the police NOTHING happened...then two days later he tells the press " COme On, you guys Know me"....then a week later says..." i m guilty of adultery but it was consensual sex".....his pattern of lying is actually going to be used against him when it comes down to he said / she said.
  8. I am not a lawyer but if I remember correctly, Kobe had the right to completely skip the preliminary hearing and go straight to trial. Wouldn't this have been the prudent thing to do in terms of influencing the jury before the actual trial?

    What I mean by this is that, with a preliminary hearing, the prosecution has a great opportunity to give detailed information about the alleged incident. Potential future jurors will undoubtedly hear about these details through the media and form a negative bias towards Kobe before the trial.

    Had the defense gone straight to trial, there would be less details given about the incident and the jury would have probably been less biases beforehand.

    I heard the news on the way home from work last night on the radio. Apparently, from what I heard, they ended up in his room where she proceeded to show him the tattoo she had on her lower back. She then was apparently grabbed by the neck on her way out and bent over a chair and sexually assaulted while Kobe repeated something to the effect of, "you're not going to tell anyone about this, right?"

    With such a large media presence on this case, I can't see how a preliminary hearing would work to the defense team's advantage. Unless of course they believed that there was not enough evidence to proceed to trial, which was a really bad gamble in my opinion.
  9. that is a good point, if the prosecution is going to use bruising as a means to prove rape.

    however, no expert here, but it seems that the judge immediately pausing the hearing when she brought up the subject of the 3 guys indicates that it was the wrong way/time to introduce that theory -- presumably the lawyer knew that, and said it anyway for the media's benefit and the shock value, etc..
  10. Exactly. This is more negative bias to feed future jurors. The preliminary hearing is not helping the defense.

    Also, if the victim is proven to have a past history of "loose sexual behavior," could this be used by the defense to form a theory that this was more likely consensual sex and that the charges were brought against him for financial benefitas well as her 15 minutes in the spotlight?
    #10     Oct 10, 2003