Kobe case dismissed?!?

[westkoast]

Prosecutors have agreed to dismiss sexual assault charges against Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant, NBC News has learned. But what remains in question is whether or not the prosecution is asking for the right to bring charges against Bryant at a later date.

 
According to NBC News, the prosecutors will move to dismiss the case "without prejudice", which means they can refile the case later.

ABC, however, reported that the prosecution wanted the case to be dismissed "with prejudice", meaning it could never be brought to court again. According to the ABC report, the alleged victim was no longer willing to testify.

The Associated Press reported that the case will be dropped as early as Thursday.


 District Attorney Mark Hurlbert scheduled a late afternoon news conference, but his spokeswoman declined to comment before that, as did attorneys for the 20-year-old accuser. Defense attorneys did not return calls seeking comment.

L. Lin Wood, an attorney handling the accuser’s federal civil lawsuit against Bryant, said that case was intact Wednesday.

“There has been no settlement of the civil lawsuit and there have been no discussions concerning a settlement,” he said. He declined to comment when asked about the criminal case.

Bryant, 26, has said he had consensual sex with a then-19-year-old employee of a Vail-area resort where he stayed last summer. If convicted, the Los Angeles Lakers star would face four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation, and a fine up to $750,000.

Reports that the prosecution was dropping the case surfaced as jury selection began to wrap up. Attorneys and District Judge Terry Ruckriegle had hoped to seat a 12-member jury this week, with opening statements coming next Tuesday.

Defense attorneys this week asked the judge to dismiss the assault charge, saying prosecutors had refused to turn over details that could suggest Bryant is innocent. Court rules require prosecutors and defense attorneys to exchange evidence and witness opinions before trial, a process called discovery.

In a motion made public Wednesday, defense attorneys said a forensics expert whom prosecutors had planned to call as a witness had information that “undermined the accuser’s allegations and the prosecution’s case, and corroborated Mr. Bryant’s defense on a central issue — the cause and significance of the accuser’s alleged injuries.”

The filing said those opinions were not disclosed to the defense until they contacted the expert Friday, despite repeated requests to prosecutors for the information. Prosecutors have said they have turned over all information they were required to.

“A person’s life and liberty are at stake,” the defense attorneys wrote. “The game of hide-the-ball, find-it-if-you-can discovery is intolerable. This court must vindicate Mr. Bryant’s constitutional rights and impose meaningful sanctions against the prosecution.”

The motion does not identify the expert, but prosecutors this spring had said they planned to call former New York City medical examiner Michael Baden to testify about the woman’s injuries.

Hurlbert had said during a July 19 hearing he had decided against using Baden. He did not elaborate.

The defense motion was first reported by ABC News, which cited unidentified sources who said Baden told prosecutors the woman’s injuries could have been caused by consensual sex. Baden did not return messages Wednesday.

The defense has also argued that injuries found on the woman could have been caused by sex with someone else in the time surrounding her encounter with Bryant, including someone afterward and before she went to a hospital. The woman’s attorneys have denied that claim.

Defense attorneys asked the judge to either dismiss the case or bar prosecutors from introducing any expert testimony relating to the accuser’s injuries. The judge gave prosecutors until Tuesday to respond.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[Ted]

That's one thing I noticed in the SI article I posted earlier. The extent of her injuries didn't seem to positively indicate assault. Poor aim on Kobe's part maybe, but not necessarily assault.

[westkoast]

Poor aim on Kobe's part maybe, but not necessarily assault.

 :rofl:  :rofl:

Cant believe the finals bug went all the way into the summer

[Ted]

:cheers:

Congrats to Laker fans. Whether or not justice has been served (we'll never really know), I'm glad this story is nearly dead. I don't think Kobe will ever be free of it, though. That sex came at a very high price. I wonder how much . . .

I was also a little shocked at Kobe's statement saying he could understand how she might not have thought the sex was consensual. Good grief, that statement is a hair's breadth away from a confession! I've never been convinced that Kobe actually raped her, but that statement sure makes me wonder. If you "can understand" how the girl you are having sex with might not agree with you that the sex you are having is consensual, what the hell are you doing having sex with her?

[smelly Pit Bull $$]

Do you feel that Kobe's apology points to guilt or innocence? Was it + or -?

Roger Cossack legal analyst of ESPN:

"I thought the apology was bizarre. He has claimed for a year he didn't do it. However, later on, Pamela Mackey indicated why it was made - a demand by the victim and her attorneys. Mackey has said that was the only reason he did it. "  end quote.

How lawyerish lame is that.  He made the apology but according to Mackey its meaningless.  Then why make it?  What a skank.
 

[spursfan101]

YEAH!!  I always knew Kobe was innocent!!   :rofl:


And this is my problem with being accused of sexual assault allegations. Even if your completly found innocent in the court of law, you will ALWAYS be labeled a sexual offender in the minds of everybody else.  

Kobe will be boo'd everywhere he goes. Deserving? Um. I'm not a fan...don't have respect for him... but he definately dosen't deserve that.

[Joe Vancil]

All I've got to say is "WOW."

I knew Bryant wouldn't serve a day of jail time.  However, if you ask me, the "apology" makes this whole thing seem really weird.  If he didn't do it, why apologize - especially with the words he used?  It's nearly a confession!

I'm more convinced than ever that he should have been found guilty.

 

[ziggy]

All I've got to say is "WOW."

I knew Bryant wouldn't serve a day of jail time.  However, if you ask me, the "apology" makes this whole thing seem really weird.  If he didn't do it, why apologize - especially with the words he used?  It's nearly a confession!

I'm more convinced than ever that he should have been found guilty.

The accuser required he say it for her to give the blessing for ending it.  That was Kobe's plea bargain, say it and not go to court, or not say it and potentially go to prison.  He said what he had to say to get it over with.
That statement will have no bearing on the civil trial.  He can make the claim that it was her words, and that it was negotiated to end the criminal trial.  It then means nothing in a civil case.
This entire thing is really bizarre.  I have no idea what to think about it anymore.  At this point though I believe the state didn't have a case, and was going to lose.  That doesn't mean Kobe didn't do it, but NOBODY has proven that he did, so until they do he didn't do it.

[Reality]

All I've got to say is "WOW."

 However, if you ask me, the "apology" makes this whole thing seem really weird.  If he didn't do it, why apologize - especially with the words he used?  It's nearly a confession!

I'm more convinced than ever that he should have been found guilty.

The accuser required he say it for her to give the blessing for ending it.  That was Kobe's plea bargain, say it and not go to court, or not say it and potentially go to prison.  He said what he had to say to get it over with.
That statement will have no bearing on the civil trial.  He can make the claim that it was her words, and that it was negotiated to end the criminal trial.  It then means nothing in a civil case.

If it was indeed "her words" and were merely negotiated thru the Liars, I mean lawyers, then would it not seem logical that in the negotiated deal her lawyers would include that after the apology was read, any statments by Pit Bull or the rest of Kobes Team could and would not include anything about his apology being merely a demand by Her lawyers?

Picture it if you are her lawyers.

BTW I do agree it seems it was a plea bargain to end it.  At first it was like WOW is Kobadiah having a conscience and sincerely reflecting on his actions.  Now i dont know what is lawyer trash and real.

[westkoast]

:cheers:

Congrats to Laker fans. Whether or not justice has been served (we'll never really know), I'm glad this story is nearly dead. I don't think Kobe will ever be free of it, though. That sex came at a very high price. I wonder how much . . .

I was also a little shocked at Kobe's statement saying he could understand how she might not have thought the sex was consensual. Good grief, that statement is a hair's breadth away from a confession! I've never been convinced that Kobe actually raped her, but that statement sure makes me wonder. If you "can understand" how the girl you are having sex with might not agree with you that the sex you are having is consensual, what the hell are you doing having sex with her?

I was thinking the same exact thing.  What the hell does 'I can see how she could see it that way' mean.  Its pretty cut and dry.  Its either yes she wanted to or no she didn't want to.

Heard on the radio this morning that the DA's own office had little jokes going on about how the case was dead in the water the moment it came up.  Not even the DA's own staff thought this case had any chance.  The executive producer (who has the credentials) of Celebrity Justice was saying he spoke to plenty of defense lawyers around the city the moment the story broke and this wouldnt be the first time the DA has put people thru long intense battles only to end up dropping the case.  He said they all told him pretty much the same story of the DA doing the same thing to their clients.  All at different times.  Pretty intresting interview.

[Guest_Randy]

I think you guys are missing the point on why the accuser insisted that Kobe issue the apology -- esp. worded the way it was.

First, it was a speech -- not a spur of the moment apology.  The defense are still his lawyers and they would NEVER allow Kobe to freewheel at such a time.

Second, the apology wasn't insisted on by the accuser to gain an edge at the civil trial -- she already has the civil trial in the bag, IMO.  It's a whole different ball game in civil court and the reasonable doubt rests with the accuser now rather than Kobe.

Third, I think the brilliance behind the accusers apology requirements has already done it's work -- it's to cause doubt in the mind of American people.  The accuser already believed that there was no way she was going to win in a "he said, she said."  Unfortunately, these kind of trials are based on character and there is questions on both of their characters at this point.  However, what she did with Kobe's apology was brilliant -- because she caused people to wonder -- to stop and question, once again, "did Kobe really do it?"  And by doing it?  She just raised the ante a whole lot more at the civil trial -- and gave herself a better playing field when they start bringing in a jury.

[Guest]

However, what she did with Kobe's apology was brilliant -- because she caused people to wonder -- to stop and question, once again, "did Kobe really do it?"  And by doing it?  She just raised the ante a whole lot more at the civil trial -- and gave herself a better playing field when they start bringing in a jury.

My understandning is the cap on her civil victory is 1 million, with or without the apology.

She could make tons more by a book or movie deal if money was her only motive is $$$, as some presume.

As for the apology being "hers",  will all Accuser Haters (not reffering to you Randy) fill in the blank of why it was Kobe "had to apologize"?  Weak, lame, and a cop out to those who claim such.  Was it not a slam dunk that he was going to win?  If so seems as if he had waited all this time he could wait for 3 more weeks of a trial which the Haters allege he would not be found guilty for sure.  I also happen to think he would have been found not guilty.  A phony legalistic Apology (as the Haters claim it was) was the only way to end this for Kobadiah?  Booooooo!

Also not reffering to you ziggy at all.  I do realize that its possible Kobe wanted it to just end.  Fine.  If so tho, dont cop to a lame *forced* confession.

[Guest_Randy]

However, what she did with Kobe's apology was brilliant -- because she caused people to wonder -- to stop and question, once again, "did Kobe really do it?"  And by doing it?  She just raised the ante a whole lot more at the civil trial -- and gave herself a better playing field when they start bringing in a jury.

My understandning is the cap on her civil victory is 1 million, with or without the apology.

She could make tons more by a book or movie deal if money was her only motive is $$$, as some presume.

As for the apology being "hers",  will all Accuser Haters (not reffering to you Randy) fill in the blank of why it was Kobe "had to apologize"?  Weak, lame, and a cop out to those who claim such.  Was it not a slam dunk that he was going to win?  If so seems as if he had waited all this time he could wait for 3 more weeks of a trial which the Haters allege he would not be found guilty for sure.  I also happen to think he would have been found not guilty.  A phony legalistic Apology (as the Haters claim it was) was the only way to end this for Kobadiah?  Booooooo!

Also not reffering to you ziggy at all.  I do realize that its possible Kobe wanted it to just end.  Fine.  If so tho, dont cop to a lame *forced* confession.

I hadn't heard that there was a cap of 1 mill on her civil trial -- where did you hear that?

As for Kobe's apology, do you REALLY think it wasn't prewritten and preconceived?  You haven't heard the family screaming "we didn't ask him to apologize, have you?"  I think it's very plausible -- she wants to be able to say in public that "he did it -- didn't you hear him say that I wasn't willing?"  Personally, I can't see why Kobe would EVER make that kind of statement had it NOT been forced.  And, yeah, Kobe would have wanted to end this thing as QUICKLY as possible -- not another 3 weeks -- he is tired of the press, the stress and the attention (at least this kind of attention) and you KNOW it has to be tough on the family.  I'm not surprised at all that he would want to end it as quickly as possible.  

And IF there is a cap of a mill on the civil trial -- I imagine he will write that check tomorrow!

[ziggy]

I don't know how many of you read Sports Illustrated, but the latest issue had a very interesting article on the trial, as it was published before the decision to dismiss the charges.
My take on this is that the state had a pretty compelling case of rape.  The issue of the semen in her panties, which the defense claims came from an encounter between the alleged rape and the time of the rape exam, is easily refuted by a number of prosecution witnesses.  It would have been hard for the defense to create reasonable doubt with this alone.  The seman was already degraded, indicating that it was "older" than the time frame of the incident between her and Kobe.
The second issue was the blood.  There was blood on the panties and blood on Kobe's TShirt, all from the victim.  Blood evidence is "supposedly" the best evidence in rape cases, and is the best evidence of a non-consenting encounter.  Her last period was 9 days before the incident, so that would not have played a part.  The fact that their was bleeding, bruising and tearing is also evidence that support the victim's claim that she was not a "whore" as some choose to refer to her as, since someone who was promiscuous would be less likely to have these kinds of injuries.  These injuries are very consistent with rape.

Obviously though the state and the victim didn't feel as if they could prevail, so there is obviously other info tha this writer was not privy to, or chose not to report on.  My gut tells me one thing, but the reality is that no one has proven he did commit rape, so until someone does you have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Reality]

Randy, this is from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131219,00.html

"Damages for pain and suffering and other non-economic losses in Colorado civil cases generally cannot exceed $733,000, though damages for economic losses and physical impairment or disfigurement are not capped. Punitive damages cannot exceed the compensatory award and can be given only if the allegations are proved beyond a reasonable doubt."  I dont know what that last sentence means $$wise in the would be civil case.  The million dollar cap figure was from some legal tv talking heads.

ziggle thanks for the SI article.  I'm not so sure that the Accuser wanted out because she felt she could not prevail.  Notice the same Fox article commenting on why both she and Kobe might want out of not only the criminal but also the civil:  The procedure is almost identical to that under Colorado's rape-shield law, which generally bars defense attorneys from introducing such information unless they prove in a closed-door hearing that it is relevant, Hewitt said.

But Bryant's sexual history also could become evidence: The lawsuit, without elaboration, accuses him of "attempting to commit similar acts of violent sexual assault on females he has just met."

"I would suspect there are some land mines for both sides," said Arthur Hellman, a professor specializing in federal courts and civil procedure at the University of Pittsburgh law school. "There's such a set of dangers of the material that they would each have to produce, and I would think both sides would have an incentive not to want to have all that get out."