Denver Post
3-way rights fight tangles Bryant case
Sunday, December 21, 2003 -
EAGLE - The battle over whether Kobe Bryant's defense can have his accuser's medical and psychological records - and whether the media can report on hearings describing intimate details about the woman - are being watched by victim advocates and legal scholars across the nation.
It is the first case in the nation, legal observers believe, where three constitutional rights have simultaneously collided - those of the defendant, the accuser and the media. Under Colorado law, victims are afforded the same constitutional protections as criminal defendants. Now Judge Terry Ruckriegle must decide how to balance all three. At stake are a victim's privacy and the privacy of her medical, psychological and counseling records, said Steve Siegel, past president of the the Colorado Organization of Victims Assistance and the treasurer of the National Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment Network. "It is the first time we've seen a challenge, a potential challenge, because we don't know what Ruckriegle's ruling will be, to the will of the people of Colorado that victims be treated with dignity and respect," Siegel said Saturday. He was referring to a constitutional amendment, passed by Colorado voters in 1992, saying crime victims should be treated with "dignity, fairness and respect." The legislature soon followed by passing a law - the Victims Rights Act - that declared that victims and witnesses are to be "honored and protected by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and judges in a manner no less vigorous than the protection afforded criminal defendants." "These records go to the very heart of that, ... treating victims with dignity and respect," Siegel said. "The ruling in this case and the protection of privacy will make a statement to all future crime victims about what kind of treatment they can expect from our state if they report a crime." So complex are the issues that Ruckriegle on Friday canceled a hearing in which Bryant's defense team was arguing for the medical, psychological and counseling records of the accuser. The media was simultaneously asking that it be allowed to report on a hearing - where nine witnesses were expected to testify - in which intimate details of the woman's life were expected to be disclosed. The woman's lawyer, a rape counseling center and prosecutors argued against turning the records over or allowing the media to cover witness testimony. Because weighing the rights of an alleged victim is an area of law untested by higher courts, Ruckriegle asked lawyers on all sides to prepare detailed written legal arguments by Jan. 5 in preparation for the next hearing on Jan. 23. Siegel and David Lugert, an Eagle lawyer who helped draw up the Victims Rights Act when he was an assistant Colorado attorney general, said what Ruckriegle decides will be very important. Siegel said Ruckriegle's decision will "reverberate" through victims issues across the country. If the decision goes against victims' rights, Siegel said, a host of organizations will appeal the ruling. Lugert said Ruckriegle's decision "is critical to victims' right advocates who want victims' rights and the Colorado Victims Rights Act protected." "There are three fundamental rights," Lugert added. "The first one is the right of Kobe Bryant to have a fair trial. The second one is the First Amendment right of the media to publish what should be public information for the public's education. The third one is the victim's right to privacy." What Ruckriegle must do, Lugert said, is balance Bryant's right to receive the evidence he needs to mount an effective defense with the media's right to report and the victim's right to privacy. As far as Ruckriegle and the lawyers in the case can tell, there has never been an appellate court in the country - such as a state supreme court or the U.S. Supreme Court - that has ever balanced all three rights simultaneously and said which right takes precedent. Because of the unusual issues of Bryant's high-profile case, Ruckriegle's ruling will be seen and examined by everyone, including legal scholars, Lugert said Saturday. On Friday, prosecutors and defense attorneys in Bryant's sexual- assault case battled over access to the 19-year-old accuser's medical and psychological records. She allegedly was attacked in an Edwards hotel on June 30. Bryant has publicly admitted to adultery but contends the liaison was consensual. Attorneys split in heated discussions about whether the woman's conversations with family and friends nullified her privilege to keep her medical and psychological records confidential. Defense attorneys are seeking the records to bolster their argument that the woman filed a false report against the basketball star as part of a pattern of behavior to gain attention from her ex-boyfriend. Prosecutors and the woman's attorney, however, say the records must be kept secret and testimony about them needs to be conducted behind closed doors. "This family and this victim have done everything they can to stay out of the media," said John Clune, the woman's attorney. "Every aspect of the victim's life and prior sexual history is before the national media. Meanwhile, (Bryant's) admissions were deemed appropriate for an in-camera proceeding" at the October preliminary hearing, Clune said. Tom Kelley, the attorney for a consortium of media outlets including The Denver Post, argued that much of the information about the woman - including her purported suicide attempts, psychological troubles and sexual history - already has been made public and the witness testimony should be conducted in open court. That "cat is out of the bag" argument drew a livid response from Assistant District Attorney Ingrid Bakke, whose voice cracked as she railed against repeating "embarrassing, humiliating" details that could dissuade other sexual-assault victims from ever coming forward. |