I heard on tv lawyer saying she said the name and the 3 guys so the case would be forced to move out of eagle....The Judge though has let the case get out of control from the get go....AAA was right...1st time a warning, 2nd time contempt, 3rd time sit in a cell and be fined 10k....SIX TIMES!!!!!...Lance Ito was the same way....they get on TV and are like deer in the head lights.....I really beleive it should be closed ( but filmed) then six weeks after the verdict they release the tapes.
Does a judge have the power to remove an attorney from the defense -- or replace an attorney? What power does a judge have if he or she thinks the attorney is acting irresponsibly and in gross negligence to proper conduct within a courtroom?
we are aware of that fact nobody said it was bad.....on the other hand to a juror who is trying to decide if some small vaginal tearing is from rape or from three guys in three days, its very significant...getting drunk every day by your self is not illegal but if you crash a car and they smell alcohol, chance are they are going to think you were drunk right? aphex: the judge can order an attorney off for violations but the defendant would have 30-90 days or more to go get another attorney...It happened in NYC when Gotti's attorney was kicked out.
a lawyer is not permitted to ask a question with no basis in fact. If Kobe's lawyer just threw out the "three guys" question, it was grossly improper, particularly since she apparently phrased it as factual. A lot of judges would hit you with a contempt citation after the trial, plus refer you to the state Bar disciplinary committe for a stunt like that. Even if it was true, it is not relevant to rape but of course might be to the internal injuuries. So they could well get it in if they had some factual foundation for it. I previously read that the injuries were pretty gruesome. So this could be a double whammy for Kobe. The prosecution could come back and argue that she would never have consented to sex with Kobe if she was already suffering severe internal injuries that would have made sex unbearably painful.
That will be central to the defense. The prosecution has presented this as a clear-cut rape case. THe prosecution said he forced her to submit against her protest, and he tried to compel her silence afterward. There is not going to be any gray area where it may have been reasonable for him to think it was consensual and reasonable for her to have thought it was against her consent. The jury is going have to belive the prosecution's case completely to convict. The only way to defend Kobe is to raise doubts about her credibility. Their strategy is to get a woman defense attorney to say the alleged victim was easily disposed to fuck guys and did it often with various guys. She had a pattern of submitting to men's requests for sex and felt debased afterward, hence her suicide attempt. She had sex with Kobe and expected more from him, when he made it clear it was a simple one night stand she became hurt and angry and concocted this story, which then took on a life of its own due to Kobe's celebrity. If you thought that this was an awful display wait until this defense attorney cross examines the accuser. If the attorney is any good, every juror will think she is a rotten liar. Vaginal bruising can result from consensual sex. Ask any woman who has had to put up with a guy who couldn't come for 1/2 hour or more. A woman could be sore for a week. I am not suggesting the foregoing is what happened, just what the strategy could be. Kobe better not take any advice from Mike though.
LOL! That is a great post, though. Thanks for making the situation more clear for me. I agree with what you said. The defense needs to show the jury that this woman has a history of promiscuous behavior and that Kobe is the victim in this situation. When I heard the plaintiff's account of what happened, it was very damning, though. Basically she was walking out and he grabbed her by the neck and basically treated her like a piece of meat for a little while. Does anyone remember Kobe offering the girl money not to testify? I believe it was a few million dollars. Will Vegas be putting odds on this case?
Given the defense is trying to influence the jury pool is just another reason for these types of high profile cases to be completely blacked out until the jury selection is over, if not until the trial is over. There is no real reason, beyond entertainment, that the public needs to know the details of this case before a trial is complete. I am in favor of an open press, as a means to keep the public informed as it relates to decision making in public policy so that we can keep watch on our leadership, but the information that comes out before, during, and after a trial of this nature is meaningless in the grander scheme of life. I don't blame the defense for doing its job, I blame the judge for allowing any of this information to become public.