The Denver Post
Bryant motion asks for more protection
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 -
Kobe Bryant's lawyers argued Tuesday that defendants accused of rape deserve more protection in trials than their accusers because, by law, citizens accused of a crime are presumed innocent.
In sexual-assault cases, the history of both the defendant and the alleged victim lie at the heart of the criminal justice prosecution, lawyer Hal Haddon said in a motion filed with District Judge Terry Ruckriegle. But under Colorado's rape- shield law, an alleged victim's sexual history is overly protected, making it virtually impossible for a defendant to confront the accuser and learn his or her sexual history, Haddon said. On the other hand, a suspect's prior sexual acts are believed relevant and highly probative, he said. For that reason, Haddon's motion - made to strengthen arguments he made in a similar motion filed Dec. 12 - asks that the rape-shield act be declared unconstitutional. "The law's treatment of the relevance of their respective histories should be equal (to) or, if anything, more protective of the defendant ... (because) it is the defendant, and not the accuser, who faces a tremendous loss of liberty and a lifetime stigma and therefore receives numerous constitutional protections," Haddon said. Bryant, an all-star guard for the Los Angeles Lakers, faces four years to life in prison if convicted of sexual assault. He has admitted he had sex with a 19-year-old Edwards hotel employee the night of June 30 but said the encounter was consen- sual. The woman claims that what started as consensual kissing became rape. Dan Recht, a past president of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, said he believes Bryant's lawyers have made a strong argument that the rape-shield law is unconstitutional. The "huge discrepancy" in the laws is "concerning," Recht said. But former prosecutor Karen Steinhauser said there is no way the rape-shield statute is unconstitutional.
Click here for an interactive presentation on Kobe Bryant's career.
Click here for an archive of court documents in the People v. Bryant case.
Click here for The Denver Post's graphic on the events of June 30.
Click here for the 9NEWS archive on the case.
Click here for the CourtTV archive on the case.
"The rape-shield law does not preclude the admission of relevant evidence - of evidence that the jury needs to hear to make a fair determination in the case," she said. "It only creates a presumption. It does not say automatically that evidence is excluded." Prosecutors have vigorously defended the state's rape-shield law, saying Colorado courts consistently have upheld it. A member of the prosecution team, Dana Easter, said in a brief in response to Haddon's December motion that the law is an effort to correct a former practice of trial courts that allowed "wide latitude in cross-examining" rape victims about their sexual history. This now-disfavored practice was unfair because there is no "logical connection" between the victim's credibility and her prior sexual conduct, Easter said. |