The Denver Posteditorial
Rape-shield issues tricky
Saturday, March 13, 2004 -
We share the concerns of women's advocacy groups that the planned closed- court questioning of the alleged rape victim in the Kobe Bryant case may keep other women from reporting sexual assaults.
The prosecution believes that a wide-ranging inquiry into the woman's sexual history violates Colorado's rape-shield law. Colorado Supreme Court rulings and the rape-shield law generally put a rape victim's sexual conduct off limits as evidence at trial. But that law allows such questioning behind closed doors if the defense presents supporting affidavits setting forth evidence that might clear the defendant. The presiding judge decides what, if any, of that evidence will be permitted at trial. Many Coloradans aren't aware that the closed hearings are allowed under the rape-shield law and occur fairly frequently, but most cases don't attract the type of media attention that the Bryant case has. The alleged victim is scheduled to testify March 24 in the chambers of District Judge Terry Ruckreigle. The Los Angeles Lakers star's lawyers are investigating the woman's sexual history back to the summer of 2002, a year before the alleged rape on June 30, 2003, at a resort hotel in Edwards. A petition to the Colorado Supreme Court to halt the proceeding was denied. According to Karen Steinhauser, a former prosecutor who is now with the University of Denver College of Law, a judge must at least listen to the evidence to decide if anything should be presented to a jury. In the event of conviction, that avoids the risk of a reversal on appeal because the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights - such as the right to confront one's accuser - were violated. A closed hearing on a woman's sexual history may be difficult for the victim. But going through trial again because a conviction was reversed? "That is hell," Steinhauser said. Tinkering with the rape-shield law could render it unconstitutional, Steinhauser warned. If, however, the Bryant case spotlights flaws in the statute, then lawmakers should re-examine the law very carefully to see if modifications are possible. |