The Denver Post
Judge threatens sanctions in Bryant case
Friday, June 04, 2004 -
State District Judge Terry Ruckriegle has warned prosecutors in the Kobe Bryant case that he may impose sanctions on them for failing to follow one of his direct orders.
The sanctions could range from not allowing prosecutors to use some of the evidence they've gathered against Bryant to a reduction in the severity of charges against the basketball superstar, legal analysts said today. At the heart of the issue is DNA testing that could show whether Bryant's accuser had sex with several men around the time she claims Bryant raped her in a Colorado hotel room last June 30, said Jeralyn Merritt, a Denver defense attorney. Merritt said the 19-year-old woman claims she had sex only once in the time period surrounding June 30. That was with a partner using a condom several days before her encounter with Bryant, Merritt said. But the testing of the DNA found in semen found on the accuser could prove otherwise, Merritt said. "If there are other samples of semen ... that don't match Kobe, then she lied to investigators. If she lied to investigators, that is a critical issue for the jury," Merritt said. Krista Flannigan, spokeswoman for District Attorney Mark Hurlbert, didn't return calls for comment. Because the DNA testing is so critical, Bryant defense attorneys Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon have requested that their DNA expert, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, be present at DNA testing done by the prosecution. Ruckriegle granted that request in early May and said that a defense expert should be allowed to view the prosecution testing. Prosecutors assured the defense that their expert could be present.
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.
But earlier this week, Mackey and Haddon said they were notified by letter that the prosecution had chosen, in direct violation of Ruckriegle's order, a lab that won't permit their expert to witness the prosecution DNA testing. On Wednesday, they informed Ruckriegle of the violation and asked that he find out why the violation was occurring. And today, Ruckriegle gave prosecutors until Tuesday to tell him why they failed to select a laboratory which would permit the defense expert to be present. He also asked them to show why he shouldn't impose sanctions. Legal experts said Friday that prosecutors are not helping their case by not following the judge's order. Any sanction could potentially be detrimental to their case, the experts said. "It seems obvious that the court is more than a little upset and seemingly because the prosecution has directly violated one of his explicit orders," said Dan Recht, a Denver defense lawyer who has followed the case closely. "It is highly unusual for a judge to even raise the question of sanctions without it even being requested by (the defense)," Recht added. "But it is not unheard of when a judge feels like his ruling has been directly violated. It makes sense that the judge would be very upset." Karen Steinhauser, a former prosecutor and now a professor at the University of Denver School of Law, said that the judge is telling prosecutors they better have a very good reason for not complying with his order. "He expects his orders to be complied with and if not complied with he is saying to them that you will have to deal with the consequences. I don't think he'll hesitate to impose the consequences." The legal experts said the sanctions could range from reducing the severity of the charges against Bryant, blocking the prosecution from using certain evidence, attorney fees, costs and even damages. "He is not going to put up with them not following his orders," Steinhauser said. Merritt said that Ruckriegle's order indicates the judge is frustrated and angry "because this is not the first time that the prosecution has failed to comply in good faith with the court's testing order." |