The Denver Postanalysis
Weak case closes with a whimper
Thursday, September 02, 2004 -
Legal analysts said the case against Kobe Bryant was never particularly strong and, in some cases, they reacted with disdain to the prosecution's announcement Wednesday that the charges were being dropped.
"The prosecution always said somebody's name was being dragged through the mud - it turns out it was Kobe Bryant's," said Larry Pozner, a Denver criminal defense lawyer and past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "This dismissal comes a year late," Pozner said. "And one wonders if a thorough investigation would have spared everyone this agony." Eagle County District Attorney Mark Hurlbert announced early Wednesday evening that the case against Bryant was being dismissed with prejudice, meaning it could not be tried again, because the victim did not want to move forward. Legal analyst Craig Silverman called the case "an unmitigated disaster for true victims of sexual assault." "It's going to make it more difficult for these women to come forward," Silverman said. "This case was weak and it was weak from the outset. ... Every legal analyst saw it. Why didn't Mark Hurlbert see that? Why did he waste so much of the taxpayers' money?" He said the weaknesses stemmed from both the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault and evidence that emerged later. "She (the victim) assigned him (Bryant) that isolated room, she snuck away from her job to go meet with him, she engaged in expansive flirtation, she went in, showed him her intimate tattoos, engaged in intimate kissing and hugging, and when he took it further and she protested, he stopped. "Add what we learned since about Mr. X and his DNA," Silverman said, referring to the DNA of another man found on the victim's underwear, "and you have an acquittal." The victim in the case is also suing Bryant in civil court, causing some to speculate that a pending settlement in that suit was the reason she no longer wanted to cooperate in the criminal action. "I would suspect there's more than just her saying, 'I can't do this anymore,"' said Karen Steinhauser, a visiting professor at the University of Denver's College of Law. The victim's attorney, L. Lin Wood, said that as of Wednesday evening, the civil case will move forward. In a case where the victim's name and sexual history became public to the media, some analysts believed Colorado's rape- shield law still remained intact. "The law doesn't say no evidence whatsoever of an alleged victim's sexual history - the law says there are exceptions," Steinhauser said. The case did, however, raise questions about victim privacy, she said. "How can you handle a case in such a way that privacy is protected?" Bryant's defense attorney, Pamela Mackey, named the victim during proceedings, then immediately apologized in court. Some analysts believe the use of the name was accidental, while others thought it was deliberate. "The defense attorneys represented Mr. Bryant as well as anybody could," said Guss Guarino, executive director of the Criminal Defense Bar in Denver. "They explored the avenues they needed to. The media pressure, obviously, was a big factor in this case." In Pozner's eyes, that pressure pushed forward a case that should have been dropped long ago. "The (Eagle County) Sheriff's Department had an obligation to find the facts, whether they were good or bad, and it's clear they put blinders on," he said. "There was a rush to arrest him (Bryant), vilify the guy, then sit back and gripe when all the facts turned out against them. The woman was not asked the tough questions. They (the prosecution) didn't want to test the scientific evidence - why? because they wouldn't like the results. "This case," he said, "just died a death without dignity." Staff writer Amy Herdy can be reached at 303-820-1752 or aherdy@denverpost.com .
|