This is a state court matter, therefore the laws of the state of Colorado determine the latitude a judge has. It is very likely that the judge can dismiss the charges at any time if he feels they lack a critical component required by law. If he feels the case does not make a PRIMA FACIE case, he must dismiss the case. Before the trial, the judge can merely dismiss the charges on this basis. Before a verdict, but DURING a trial, the judge can issue a DIRECTED VERDICT. It means that the judge finds insufficient evidence to play connect the dots to guilt. Suppose after the verdict is read, the judge concludes that injustice had been done, that the jury ran away with emotion and reached a bad result. The judge can refuse to enter judgment on the verdict. He can issue a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, also known as a JNOV (the acronym is for a Latin term). I'm not certain if the terminology for criminal law is exactly the same as civil law, so I'm not sure it's called the JNOV on the criminal side. A DIRECTED VERDICT is the vehicle the judge uses BEFORE the jury goes back to consider the defendant's fate. The JNOV is the vehicle the judge uses AFTER the jury has reached a verdict. It's the same action in essence, but the timinig dictates the terminology and implications. Any way you want to look at it, the judge has significant latitude before, during and after the trial to the jury, and he may order the charges dismissed at any time due to some serious legal failing, or to effect justice. For example, the judge learns that the sheriff planted evidence. Case dismissed. But this judge lives in this valley. He's not going to give Kobe any help. Just the opposite. That show last week was this whole town trying out for American Idol starting with the judge. Look at me, ma! I'm NOT roadkill! Someone needs to put a leash on that badger he wears on his head. I'm not just a member. I'm the president of the badgers make good rugs hair club for men.
the color of Kobe's skin will have nothing to do with his guilt or innocence in the end. At least for me personally I can say that with confidence. I will reserve my judgement until I see the facts of the case. Anyone who says they think he is innocent or guilty at this point obviously has other motivations since no one in the public knows any evidence that the DA will present. So I say, just shut the hell up about it until we actually have something to talk about. Speculating (especially bout the "possibility" of a jury being biased because of race) is pointless. You are stereotyping the people that live in Eagle Co. just because they live in a "white" town with few blacks. To me, this is just as bad as the few people that are judging Kobe based on his race. Race has nothing to do with this case unless the media and defense lawyers try to make it about race. Untill I see a judge, jury member, or DA make racial biased statements. I don't see how anyone can start playing the race card.
Not as bad. Stereotyping based on race is definitely wrong. But being worried that an all-white town may be racist has it's arguments. Being all-white means that they have limited exposure to black people, therefore they are more prone to stereotypes and 'word of mouth' from people. They lack a good counter-example to any negative feelings towards a certain race. A multicultural society is generally less-prone to racism than a homogeneous society. Same way that a person that is more exposed to different people and cultures is more likely to be open to people, than someone who hangs around 'their own kind'.
Study the issue and ask questions but don't read the article and ask dumb questions? You think Kobe's lawyers are paying hate groups to post fliers around town but you're looking for the truth right? Mkay.
Of course you're wrong Timing, I'm sure a white supremacist organization had no problem with helping Kobe out by taking responsability for the fliers. Silly you.
unless someone on this board expects to be in the jury pool, why shouldn't anyone speculate about the case and every aspect of it? no one here will be on the jury, so bias or prejudice is not an issue. we can be as biased as we wish. there may be a few people who will decide what they believe based upon the evidence shown in trial, but even those people will be tremendously swayed by things the jury would never hear. Most of us pick a side early and see the evidence from the perspective of one who expects a certain outcome.
What does your gut feeling tell you? I mean just think about it. A young somewhat attractive girl comes on to you and gets you all worked up and your thinking your fixin to get some and then all of a sudden she wants to stop, and here you are mr. kobe bryant superstar who just got shot down by some small town white girl, and your thinking who does she think she is. maybe its not right that a woman can get away with getting a man all worked up and then leave him hanging but as far as i know they can and they are protected by law. I dont believe a man should force himself on a woman but i also dont think that a woman should get a man all worked up unless she plans on following thru with it. maybe she did bait him into doing something stupid, i mean it wasnt like she was going to marry him or get him to give her alot of money for sleeping with her (not meaning to offend others who have been raped or saying that its allright to rape someone no matter the surcumstance), but i believe she had some kind of intention to get something started to begin with, and it doesnt appear that it was that she just couldnt resist sleeping with kobe. all in all my gut tells me that he did rape her right or wrong for whatever reason and it doesnt matter what the race is, i would like to see justice served the same for a rich star as it would be for anyone of us.
From my limited but eye-opening experience as a jurist, I found out this about either myself of the court process in general. I was a jurist in a civil suit and the proceedings went for 3.5 days. The jury deliberated for a little bit shy of a day and a half. What I found was that the first impressions I formed from the opening statements of the 2 lawyers were mostly obliterated by the evidence when we got into the nitty-gritty. And again, when we got into the jury room, even when the evidence was heavy in my mind, the way I looked at it and reasoned it out changed a lot from talking with my fellow jurists. From a jury-duty-dodger point-of-view, it was easy for me to say that a jury is going to be tainted by media leaks or by latent racism or whatever other factors. Now, I think such things probably have less effect than I thought they did. When you're immersed in a case and trying to figure out what the heck happened, all the things you brought from outside the court-room fall away. That's what happened for me. Of course, I was probably one of the more conscientous jurists in the room. And, we did have that guy who seemed determined to help his Mexican countryman out. Btw, if I haven't said it enough times already, I highly recommend jury duty. Very educational experience.
Timing and Pgabriel, if I'm a Team Kobe attorney raking in millions for a non-guilty verdict, I'd be devious enough to do something like that -- and I KNOW these guys are far more devious than I could ever dream of being. However, I suggested you ask questions -- not dumb questions. I'm also going to say again: rather than taking a side, study the issue and ask questions ... The great bulk of people, including me, are only looking for truth so justice can be served. You are lining yourself up with the "Bryant is innocent camp" regardless of facts as opposed to the "Bryant is guilty camp" regardless of the facts. Most of the board, including me, is in the undecided camp. However, my gullibility meter says "whoa" whenever something like this flyer turns up that is so obvious and so easy to hate. That is why I urge you to "follow the money." Who does this really help? Even ignorant racists (oxymoron, huh?) would see how they would eviscerate their cause with such a blatant tactical and/or strategic misstep. You probably think I'm in the opposite camp from you because of my sig, right? However, read it carefully -- it asks a question. Will he be "exonerated" (found innocent) or will he be "further exposed" (he already admitted to the adultery). The "Bare" Bryant is there just because he is a Laker and I like the insult.
The question is, how do you know she wanted to stop right after the fondling of his genitals? Maybe she wanted to stop in the middle of intercourse when she found out his penis was too large to handle? Maybe she wanted to stop after he ejaculated? Or maybe she didn't want to stop at all until after she got out of the hotel room?
side or no side, your 'theory' that Team Kobe hired a racist organization to distribute fliers is just pure stupidity. Kobe is black, one of his lawyers is Jewish. Yeah, I'm sure they want to associate with racists
Okay. You guys must be right. A lawyer being paid millions to win for his client would never ever use someone who might help them win just because they disagree with their viewpoint. Since I am a lunatic, I must wait a few hours to howl at the moon. It will be easier -- and more satisfying -- than trying to provide insight to someone with no sight. Isn't there a proverb that says roughly, "There is none so blind as he who refuses to open his eyes." Follow the money. Ciao.
Oh, yeah, at least quote me correctly. I never said that AT ALL. I said "follow the money" -- meaning who does all this benefit. To make it clear for you, "follow the benefit."
The benefit is to the racist alliance to further their own agenda by using this trial as a way to draw attention to what they perceive is a threat to white males by discouraging the public to approve of black male - white female relationships. Have you ever considered the *remote* possibility that the National Alliance is working on its own? Here's another rule that you should think about, "The simplest answer is often the correct answer". Kobe lovers and hater alike will find your idea dumb.
You watched "Contact" once too often. Occham's Razor is the theorem to which you refer. It is very, very often wrong. However, it's ironic that you should use that debate point. Many, many innocent people -- many of them black like Kobe Bryant -- have been sent to jail, often wrongly, because quite a number of police officers love to use that easy, lazy but convenient methodology for crime solution. Under Occham's Razor Kobe goes to jail.
The racist white organizations are strong in the West, and Colorado is no exception. They have their own reasons, one of which is their desire for coverage to recruit. I don't think it likely Kobe's team would want them involved. If black groups start showing up to test the community, that might be coming from the Kobe team. Suppose you want to get the case moved to be more favorable venue, which is ANY venue. Then suppose blacks started travelling there in numbers, eating at restaurants, going to the movies, being active and visible. Do you think there might be any incidents?
Friendly Fan, you are blowing hot air. This is a group that anyone with any intelligence loves to hate. What better group could Team Kobe better use to exploit the race card? That's it. I've got a book to read. Ciao.
Team Kobe might use black groups, but not white hate groups. The risk is far too high, and for what payoff? To play the race card? No. You play the race card when its going to do you some good.
How in the heck is pointing out that the Alliance's own spokesman says it was their decision line me up with the "Bryant is innocent camp" regardless of facts? Is ESPN in the Kobe is innocent camp too because they reported what I repeated to you? Give me a break. You sound like you're in the "out to lunch" camp.
