The Denver Postkobe bryant trial: analysis
Case on slippery slope from outset
Thursday, September 02, 2004 -
Give Alex Hunter credit.
At least the former prosecutor in the JonBenét Ramsey case knew a dog of a case when he saw one. The same cannot be said for those Eagle County prosecutors who stubbornly pursued a rape case against Kobe Bryant even after they knew - or should have known - it would fail. Wednesday's unilateral dismissal of the sexual assault charge against Bryant came one year and hundreds of thousands of public dollars too late. Actually, the sordid case never should have been brought in the first place. Because they often devolve into he said/she said contests, rape cases are notoriously difficult to prove. Any prosecutor who brings such a case to trial, especially against a lawyered-up client, ought to have an absolutely airtight case. The case against Bryant was never airtight. It was porous when it started, and it got weaker by the month. The case against Bryant was weak because the alleged victim's vaginal injuries did not necessarily indicate that Bryant and his accuser had engaged in nonconsensual sex. Indeed, before the dismissal, Wednesday's big news in the case was that a forensic expert initially endorsed by prosecutors had changed his mind and concluded that the sex the pair engaged in could have been consensual. Hand over the consent issue to the defense, and prosecutors literally had no viable case to bring to trial. The case against Bryant got weaker because the accuser reportedly engaged in sexual conduct right before and just after her encounter with Bryant. If the alleged victim's injuries were more severe or more easily linked to Bryant, this conduct would have been irrelevant. But in this case, it clearly was relevant, and it clearly cast doubt upon the credibility of her story. Now, prosecutors either knew about this conduct from the get-go or they should have known about it. And even if they didn't initially know about it - even if the alleged victim didn't level with prosecutors - surely prosecutors knew many months ago that there were some terribly "bad" facts for them in this case. And, given this knowledge, prosecutors knew or should have known that they might not successfully use Colorado's rape shield law to block this information from coming out at trial. I think prosecutors gambled that Eagle County Judge Terry Ruckriegle would feel enough political, legal and cultural pressure in this case to meekly use the rape-shield law and block the evidence. But, to his credit, Ruckriegle correctly noted that the evidence of the alleged victim's sexual activity fell into one of the few exceptions in the rape-shield law. Gamble taken. Gamble lost. This is how and why criminal cases fall apart before a jury is even seated. Remember how the Bryant case started? It started when police went over the head of the prosecutor to the judge to get a search warrant against Bryant. It was an odd, jarring start to an important case, eerily reminiscent of the Ramsey murder case, with its warring factions in law enforcement. Any case that starts with police and prosecutors in disconnect mode is likely doomed. Instead of taking their measure of blame for a series of terrible tactical and strategic decisions, prosecutors said Wednesday only that they dismissed the case because the alleged victim didn't want to testify. She might be forgiven for not knowing what she was getting into. After all, who could have foreseen all this? But this prosecution team merits no such compassion. They blew it, and they know it. Lawyer and journalist Andrew Cohen is covering the Bryant case for CBS News and The Denver Post.
|