The Denver Posteditorial
Court's leaks are unpardonable
Friday, July 30, 2004 -
The Eagle County district court fired a third strike on Wednesday when confidential information in the Kobe Bryant rape case, including the accuser's name and previously undisclosed evidence, was improperly posted on the Internet.
The posting by the court followed two previous court mistakes, all which make it increasingly difficult for prosecutors to win their case, or even for the judge to seat an impartial jury. District Judge Terry Ruckriegle and state court administrators must find out what happened, and, if necessary, change procedures to ensure that the rights of the parties in the case are fully protected. (Some remedial computer training for court staffers might help.) If appropriate, those responsible should be disciplined. The latest incident involved an order from Ruckriegle that had been filed under seal, asking the prosecution and defense to reach an agreement on the use of DNA tests taken from the Los Angeles Lakers basketball star, who is accused of raping an employee of the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera on June 30, 2003. The case is set for trial Aug. 27. Bryant's defense wants to use the DNA evidence to support their theory that the woman's injuries could have resulted from having sex with multiple partners in a short period of time. The previous breaches of confidentiality included a September 2003 Internet posting of a document that disclosed the woman's full name, and this June, when a transcript of a closed hearing was sent to seven media outlets. All three court mistakes have been to the detriment of Bryant's accuser, and attorney John Clune last week told the court that his client had considered dropping out of the case. The young woman felt betrayed, he said, and she and her family had been subjected to constant harassment and death threats. When Ruckriegle ruled July 23 that the defense may introduce evidence about the woman's sexual conduct during a 72-hour period preceding the rape exam, that was a major victory for the defense because it could introduce doubt about who caused the woman's injuries. Wednesday's leak may well have tipped the balance even more in the minds of potential jurors. Where in Colorado - or the United States, for that matter - could the court find 12 jurors with a pulse who hadn't heard of the leaks and started to reach a conclusion about the case? Courts must jealously guard the rights of the accused but also must protect the right of the people to see justice done. Ruckriegle, by failing to stanch the leaks, has botched the job. |