The Denver Post

Bryant case a legal wreck
In the NBA star's rape case, nobody was immune from the myriad of legal blunders.

Friday, September 03, 2004 - The Kobe Bryant rape case was blighted from the start by a reverse Midas touch of bad faith and blunders that seemed to turn the reputations of nearly all who touched it to molten lead.

By the time the prosecution called it quits Wednesday night, mud was splattered everywhere, with taxpayers, rape counselors and the NBA left to clean up the mess.

It's a chore to identify all the hapless figures and institutions in this legal quagmire. The year-long criminal case dealt severe blows to the Eagle County Sheriff's Office, District Attorney Mark Hurlbert and District Judge Terry Ruckriegle and his staff. It undercut public confidence in Colorado's legal system, leaving rape counselors fearful that the massive publicity would discourage women from reporting sexual assault. The handling of the case has weakened legal protections for victims.

Bryant saw his reputation shattered even though he was never put on trial. It's tempting to say that he and his accuser both deserved their day in court, but frankly none of us can be sure that's the case, such was the fog of legal futility.

In a narrow sense, the defense team led by Hal Haddon and Pamela Mackey may have emerged with enhanced stature, and surely with fat paychecks. But many citizens were put off by their junkyard-dog eagerness to attack the reputation of Bryant's accuser. They did provide the zealous representation of their client that the law expects. And, yes, they got him off.

The prosecution's case was botched from the beginning, and by the end there seemed no chance of conviction. The first obvious misstep came on July 3, 2003, when Eagle County Sheriff Joseph Hoy obtained an arrest warrant for Bryant from a judge without having the district attorney sign off on it. Anyone whose legal education has attained the level of watching "Law and Order" knows the police investigate crimes and the district attorneys prosecute alleged offenders. For the people's team to fail to coordinate their efforts was amateurish and destructive.

For his part, Hurlbert was out of his element when pitted against the high-powered Team Kobe - as if the local high school football team were facing the Green Bay Packers. He missed deadlines, released the accuser's medical records to the defense and - most critically - withheld potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense.

Then there is the Eagle County court itself, winners of the Lance Ito Traveling Trophy for Courtroom Management. On Sept. 13, 2003, documents were briefly posted on a state court website that revealed the accuser's name, in direct violation of orders by Eagle County Judge Fred Gannett. Worse was in June 2004, when a court reporter mistakenly send a transcript of rape-shield hearings in the case to media outlets, including The Denver Post. The case traveled all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and back before Ruckriegle reluctantly released a redacted version of the transcripts.

The most damaging blunder came in July, when an order from Ruckriegle was mistakenly posted on the court's website. It again included the accuser's name and details indicating she may have had sex with multiple partners in the time surrounding the alleged assault.

All three court mistakes worked to the detriment of Bryant's accuser and angered her, for good reason. But the fact is, the accuser made severe missteps on her own, and left her motivation in question. Most significant was the decision to file a civil suit against Bryant before the criminal case had been disposed of. Prosecutors deplore such suits because they can cause jurors to conclude that the accuser is more interested in money than justice.

Multiple sexual encounters - including the possibility of at least one consensual encounter shortly after her time with Bryant - eliminated any real confidence in determining what happened in Bryant's hotel room. Such conduct should shriek "reasonable doubt" in the ear of any experienced prosecutor. Finally, for the accuser to have pursued the criminal case for more than a year, then drop it while maintaining pursuit of a potentially lucrative civil case indicates at least bad judgment if not bad faith.

No tally of the casualties of this case would be complete without returning to Bryant, the former golden boy of the NBA. No one - not even Bryant or his accuser - may ever muster a totally objective account of what happened in that hotel room. But by Bryant's own admission, his actions were a blot on his marriage and a churlish exploitation of what he took to be a sexual target of opportunity.

All told, the past year has been a litany of misdirected judgment and energy. Is there a settlement brewing in the civil litigation? We shudder to think what legal wheels are turning now.