September 01, 2004

• "without prejudice..." kind of ironic, isn't it?
• Here in actual non-celebrity court, a claim made by a non-crack-whore that she was raped that included lies by the accused on tape and some corroborating physical evidence would result in the DA charging the accused 100% of the time. And probably close to 100% of those times the case would either result in a plea bargain or a trial. I say this not to suggest that he is guilty. I am not in a position to have any idea. I am just responding to sensationalists who are claiming that the DA's office did anything inappropriate. Again, I am in no position to say whether or not they have. But I can tell you that they did not harm Kobe Bryant any more than the average accused in a sex offense case.
• Apparently, the DA's office dismissed because the victim did not want to testify. They did not dismiss because they felt they had insufficient evidence to convict. Here in Wilmington, North Carolina, women who charge men with Assault on a Female (the misdemeanor, non-sexual kind) are forced to testify no matter what. I have seen cases where a neighbor called the cops, the woman told the cops there was no assault, the man was charged anyway, the woman tells the DA there was no assault and she does not want to testify, and the DA goes forward anyway and makes her take the stand. Since people found my previous comment to be so conversation-inducing, I can only brace myself for the response to this one.
• I'm not even sure what you're attempting to say, bernockle. The news reports I heard say that Bryant's defense team was claiming the prosecution had evidence that pointed to Kobe's innocence, and that they were withholding it. If this was true and the judge was leaning toward forcing them to release the evidence, then it would explain why they're dropping the charges. It would also make any claims that Kobe has been treated unfairly somewhat non-sensationalist. Your second comment is moot, since the trial in question took place in Colorado.
• My second comment was just to give a little bit of perspective. My first comment was posted before I understood that the case was dismissed because she refused to testify. Defense team claims about withheld exculpatory evidence are generally made throughout the trial in a high profile case. It makes for useful headlines which plant the seeds of doubt in potential jurors. I find it bizarre that he would issue an apology to her while the civil case is still pending. I do not know of any lawyer who would advise him to make such statements. That leads me to wonder if the civil case, too, has been worked out already. And that leads me to wonder if the resolution of the civil case has led to the resolution of the criminal case. But that would all be illegal, so I am certain that has not happened.
• Bernockle, how would that forced testifying even work? If she was the assaulters wife and did not want to testify it is my understanding that Constitutionally they can not force her. Sensationalist as it may be the DA's office did plenty wrong in this case. Their procedural gaffes and media leaks and posting of sensitive documents to public websites were far more detrimental to the case and the alleged victim than anything the defense was doing. The suppressed evidence in discovery (a big part of this was their expert witness-to-be, Dr. Michael Baden, had a contrary opinion of the injuries) was just a small part of it. The apology is weird, the timing and all. I am also wondering if the civil deal has been done already. If not could cost him.