Nope. Kobe is not innocent but he is not guilty in the eyes of cash-driven greedy lawyers. You can be a serial murderer and still get off if you have enough money. Welcome to America, the best freeland on the planet.
The trouble with generalizations like this is that it's frequently true, and then incredibly unfair when it is not true. Ive posted this more often that I care to remember but look, America's justice system is predicated on the innocent until proven guilty concept. In more concrete terms, that means we would rather 10 guilty people go free than falsely imprison 1 person. I think that's the right way to go about it.
I don't see how you cannot let the victim's recent sexual history come into play in these types of cases. What other defense does the accused have? I was surprised that this girl was talked into going through this. When Kobe's found innocent its going to ruin her life if it already hasn't. No with her questionable history coming into play, which was already coming out in the first days after his arrest, how could you not find Kobe innocent.
So if you had sex with 3 different people over 3 days would you consider yourself a skank or does this analogy simply apply to females who are promiscuous. Just becuse she had sex with different people doesnt mean that she couldnt have been raped by one of them.
Understandably, the standards of judging men and women in this country can be a little unfair. However, it's only natural for someone who has had sex with 3 people in 3 days to lose a little credibility when accusing a wealthy person of rape when she approached him willingly. That doesn't mean she's necessarily lying but it does force us to take her allegations with a grain of salt.
Wasn't she also was bragging about the size of Kobe's penis a few days after the alleged rape to her friends at a party? This is going to end up extremely embarrassing for both her and Kobe if it gets to a trial with all the nasty details. I think the prosecution will eventually drop the case, and she will receive a settlement of some kind afterwards to avoid any civil action.
Her life obviously wasn't going too well before the incident if she tried to end it twice previously. At least now, when the trial is over, she will have an opportunity to make a good living with the book deal, personal appearances, Playboy spread and civil suit. If she wants to go that route. If she wants to stay above the fray, she could perhaps become a champion of justice, like Anita Hill. What ever happened to that girl that accused William Kennedy Smith of rape? I don't even remember her name anymore. How quickly we forget.
What's really interesting is that all of the information that the prosecution seeks to bar is probative. In the Federal Rules of Evidence (which are generally close to the state rules of evidence), the mechanism by which overly prejudicial evidence is prohibited is Rule 403. All evidence is generally admissible, but evidence that is substantially more prejudicial than probative may be barred from admission at the discretion of the trial court. The rape shield law essentially reverses this. I mean, let's face it... evidence that a woman is a slut is relevant and probative towards whether she was raped. But if you consistently admit such evidence, you return to the dark ages of rape when the "she's a slut" defense essentially protected a lot of people who were guilty as sin. A woman being easy certainly doesn't preclude her being raped in any individual instance. So, what to do? Well, the feminist movement prevailed in having the presumption of admissability shifted. With rape shield, you've got a heavy burden in proving such evidence should be admitted. The Kobe case highlights how unfair it can be, in the other direction, now. There's no doubt that this woman's sexual activity in the period immediately before and after her alleged rape is extremely probative. Yet the prosecution seems to have actually counted on it not being admitted. That's a poor commentary on the state of the law. We've got to find a way in which crimes against sluts can be prosecuted effectively... without prejudicing the rights of defendants. Tough task.
were you the one who posted one time that most likely if kobe wasn't kobe, that this case wouldn't even be going to trial? don't take that any way other than me just trying to keep things straight (i know one of our resident legal types once posted that and i remember it as you but wanna know for sure). as for this thread. as if shaq/kobe wasn't big enough, we could freakin' have the diesel testifying against kobe in court!? damn. i don't see exactly what he could testify about (other than possibly saying he had a party and kobe was there) but it would definitely be interesting. it'll make the christmas day matchup that much better. also, not that i know anything about the case other than what i read in articles on here or see on sportscenter, and not that i know anything about the laws they're arguing over with the judge, and not that it doesn't take pretty much a perfect case to convict a very high profile celebrity, but it seems a little weird that there are 3 disputed things and the prosecution says that possibly if even one goes against them their entire case could be damaged. i mean, i could understand if they got frustrated by the judge siding with the high-priced defense attorneys on all 3 things or something, but saying we've gotta have all 3 go our way or we're screwed must mean their case is in pretty big trouble. basically, don't let the jury know anything about our client or it's all over.
Well, if she can't get justice, she'll at least get paid (in civil court where the burden of proof is lower). http://sportsline.com/nba/story/7550042
Here is another article on the possible civil case: Bryant accuser considers lawsuit, lawyer says Release of documents may spur decision on future of case DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- The woman who accused Kobe Bryant of rape will have to discuss with prosecutors whether she will go ahead with the criminal case because she fears the release of court documents about her sex life threatens her chance of getting a fair hearing, one of her lawyers said Wednesday. John Clune said his 20-year-old client will have to talk to prosecutors soon about that and will also consider whether to file a civil suit against the NBA star. Asked if his client is considering dropping out of the criminal case, Clune told The Associated Press: "That's something she and prosecutors will have to discuss in the immediate future. The DA's office will have to make that decision on what they want to do." The woman's other lawyer, L. Lin Wood, said decisions on how to proceed should be made in a matter of days. Bryant is scheduled to go on trial August 27 in Eagle, Colorado. "This young woman is not going away. Whether it proceeds criminally or civilly or both, justice is going to be had for this young woman," Clune said. Prosecutors have been in constant contact with the accuser and her lawyers throughout the case and were told the woman would still participate even after the release of the transcripts, district attorney's spokeswoman Krista Flannigan said Wednesday. "Nothing has changed with our plans of going forward with the prosecution of this case," she said. Under pressure from the U.S. Supreme Court, District Judge Terry Ruckriegle on Monday released some 200 pages of transcripts from a closed-door hearing in June. The transcripts had been mistakenly e-mailed to The Associated Press and six other media organizations, who fought for the right to publish their contents. (Full story) The documents include testimony from a DNA expert for the defense, Elizabeth Johnson, who says she is convinced the woman had sex with someone after Bryant and before she contacted authorities -- a claim that Clune has vehemently denied. Johnson based her conclusion on the discovery of another man's sperm on the woman when she underwent a rape exam at a hospital. There was no testimony in the documents from a prosecution expert on the issue. Clune and prosecutors say the transcripts are one-sided and that a gag order in the case prevents them from presenting their explanation of the damaging evidence before the trial. Prosecutors have suggested the woman put on underwear that hadn't been washed before going to the hospital, transferring semen from a man identified only as "Mr. X" to her body. The judge has said the defense can present evidence about the woman's sexual activities in the three days before the July 1, 2003, hospital exam, saying it is relevant to help determine the cause of her injuries, the source of DNA evidence and her credibility. Clune has kept a low profile during the case but on Wednesday he and Wood appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" to express their frustration with court mistakes which breached the woman's privacy. (Judge apologizes) "The amount of damage that has been caused by the court's error is so harmful not only to this case but to this young woman that it would be irresponsible for us not to speak at this time," Clune told the AP. In September, the woman's name was included in a filing on a state courts Web site that was quickly removed. Last fall, the hospital where she and Bryant were examined accidentally turned over her medical records to attorneys in the case. That was followed by the e-mail mistake in June and a gaffe last week in which a sealed order by Ruckriegle was mistakenly posted on the Web site, divulging her name again and information about DNA evidence collected during Bryant's hospital exam. Bryant, 25, has pleaded not guilty to felony sexual assault, saying he had consensual sex with the woman at a Vail-area resort last summer. If convicted, he faces four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation, and a fine up to $750,000. link
Well, I don't think the 'rape shield' will apply in civil court. That is when you will start to heere about every Tom hairy ....this girl has been with in the recent past. I don't think she had a grasp on what kind of defense a lot of money could put up. However, the prosecuter and her lawyer should know and they should tell her to stay out of civil court because I think she will lose there or at the very most squeeze out a piss poor settlement.
