The Denver Post
D.A.'s appeal plan at issue
Thursday, March 04, 2004 -
Asking the Colorado Supreme Court to intervene in the Kobe Bryant case could be a desperate attempt by prosecutors to limit damaging questions put to his accuser - or simply premature, legal experts said Wednesday.
In the wake of a two-day pre-trial hearing in Eagle in the assault case against the Los Angeles Lakers guard, District Attorney Mark Hurlbert announced his intention to appeal District Judge Terry Ruckriegle's decision allowing the defense unrestricted questioning of the woman during a closed-door session March 24-25. The unusual "interlocutory" appeal - expected to be filed next week - likely will ask the Supreme Court either to prevent defense attorneys outright from gaining access to the 19-year-old through a rape-shield hearing or to limit their questions. Legal experts say the purpose of the closed rape-shield hearing is to allow the judge a private glimpse to determine if any of the accuser's sexual history is relevant. "It seems premature to ask the Supreme Court now," said Lisa Wayne, a Denver defense attorney. "If there's some unfair prejudice (that the judge determines would be allowed into trial) after a hearing takes place ... then clearly they can raise that argument." Bryant's defense attorneys, Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon, want to question the woman about her sexual history and pin down her explanation for why the panties she wore to her rape examination showed evidence of another man's semen. They also claim to have evidence that semen from someone other than Bryant was found on swabs taken from the woman's skin, that she had sex within 15 hours of the disputed June 30 encounter and that she has had sex with two prosecution witnesses. "If the prosecution is going to these lengths to keep the evidence out, and the defense is going to these lengths to get the evidence in, we know from common sense that this evidence is going to be terribly destructive to the credibility of the complaining witness - to her entire story," said Denver defense attorney Larry Pozner. Krista Flannigan, spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, said prosecutors are "not scared of anything" but want the Supreme Court to review Ruckriegle's reasons for declining to limit the questions. Meanwhile, Flannigan acknowledged erring by allowing the woman's attorney, John Clune, to send an e-mail from her account disputing the defense allegations of sexual promiscuity. "It was merely for convenience. Hindsight says I probably should not have done that," she said, noting prosecutors didn't endorse Clune's statement even though it doesn't conflict with their views. |