Go To Jail. Go Directly To Jail. Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200,000,000.

[msbeadsley]

Cindy C wrote:
> I've been following the sexual assault case against Kobe Bryant with
> increasing interest. I'm not happy with young Kobe. And I'm 
> *really* not happy with his defense lawyer.

I've been trying to hit the "mute" button fast enough each time local 
newscasters get that avid leer they wear every time they manage to 
come up with some new or at least not already totally masticated 
tidbit in this case. I haven't always succeeded.

> By way of background, Kobe Bryant is a *very* well-compensated
> professional basketball star with a reputation as a general all- 
> around good guy. Some months back, he had intercourse with a 19-
> year old hotel employee. Kobe had been a guest at the hotel where 
> she works, and the alleged attack took place in his room. 

What occurred to me first and is still paramount in my mind is that 
he showed a profound lack of judgement. He is a married public figure 
who has a lot riding on his image. While sports heroes often get 
the "boys will be boys" treatment, corporate sponsors like heroes 
whose resumes do not include any sort of sex scandal. Whether or not 
the sex was consensual may come out in court and it may not; the 
verdict will be an *official* finding. But the only two people who 
will ever really know the truth are the people who were involved in 
the act. Even *they* may not agree on whether or not both of them 
were willing. And a simple lack of judgement does not mean Kobe 
Bryant should go to jail; I'm not sure everyone gets that, either.

> Kobe says the sex was consensual. He hasn't provided any evidence 
> of this yet, but the case is still in the pre-trial stage.
> The victim says it was rape. She has physical evidence of injury
> inconsistent with consensual sex. She reported the crime
> *immediately* to another hotel employee, who took the allegations
> seriously enough to escort her to her home that night. Her father
> went to the police the next morning. Her account -- some consensual
> kissing and hugging followed by her being abruptly whipped around,
> grabbed by the scruff of the neck, bent over a chair, and forced to
> submit -- sounds plausible, and there is physical evidence that 
> things got very rough.

It's much harder to prove a negative, as in that something (rape or 
anything else) did *not* happen. Evidence is around things that *did* 
happen; a lack of evidence does not "prove" the reverse. Thus, 
reasonable doubt. And while the court of public opinion and the media 
are simmering in the aromatic juices of meager fact and abundant 
surmise, the court's job is to stick to "innocent until (unless) 
proven guilty." They haven't even gone to trial yet, and 
the "Skeeters" are feeding like mad. Makes me want to douse them all 
in Deet.

> Kobe, I think, is in a world of hurt. They give out prison time in
> Colorado for this sort of thing, I'm told.

(I'm in Colorado. There's no doubt that they give out prison time 
here for "this sort of thing.") There is just *no* escape from the 
media coverage here; perhaps the national media is more restrained, 
but I'm not betting on it: though I haven't been doing any sort of 
analysis. And the hotter the coverage is, the unlikelier it is that 
anything like a fair trial will be possible *anywhere*--hey, do you 
think it's a conspiracy between the defense team, the major media and 
professional sports cartels: to muddy the waters sufficiently that 
the system will be too hip-deep in water-muddying to be effective and 
so produce reasonable doubt before a trial argument is even begun?

> Also appalling, though, is that Kobe seems to have found himself a
> defense lawyer who will violate the court's orders and the Colorado
> rape shield law when it suits her. Despite a court order that the
> victim's name not be mentioned in the hearing, Kobe's lawyer
> "inadvertently" said the name *six* times. Kobe's lawyer also
> strongly implied that the victim had been with several other men on
> previous evenings, which is dancing pretty close to violating the 
> rape shield law. As best I can figure, Kobe's Dream Team is 
> thinking their best shot at an aquittal is by intimidating the 
> complaining witness into dropping the whole thing. 

Kobe's defense team is reminding me more and more of the razzle-
dazzle man in Chicago. (If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, 
baffle them with bullsh--.) Dream Team? Nightmare Brigade, more like, 
IMO.

> Personally, I'm having some trouble finding reasonable doubt of 
> guilt here, myself. But there are many things going on that I just 
> can't understand. Why, for instance, are cameras being allowed in 
> the courtroom? Why haven't Kobe's lawyers moved for a change of 
> venue to something other than this small town of Eagleton, CO, 
> where everyone knows everyone? Aren't there sanctions for 
> willfully violating the rape shield law, and shouldn't there be? 
> Could this possibly be the first time Kobe did such a thing (after 
> all, you'd expect other women to come forward with similar tales of 
> assault in such a high-profile case)?

At one point "everybody knew" the Ramseys were guilty of killing 
little Jon-Benet (another infamous Colorado crime). And now pundits 
and public opinion are back to being undecided again. In that case 
there was never even an indictment, and most people (at least around 
here) at one point would have hanged that little girl's parents on 
the wave of public sentiment around her death.

According to what I've read, usually a judge will attempt to seat a 
jury in the jurisdiction where the case was filed. Only if it becomes 
apparent by responses of potential jurors that they are prejudiced 
against the defendant will the trial be moved. And this judge already 
said (back in August) that the extensive publicity "diminishes the 
remedy of a change of venue," so he would be unlikely to grant one. 
Sanctions for violating the rape shield law are likely up to the 
judge as well, and may not need to be applied until later. (He may 
see this as obfuscation on the part of the defense, which may be 
trying to make this at least momentarily about either the victim's 
nerve or the defense's tactics rather than about the facts in the 
case. In which case, I'm glad the judge didn't fall for the bait.) 
Whether or not to allow cameras in the courtroom is definitely his 
call; it could be as simple as the amount of money this case is 
costing and a decision to allow the public to see why and how those 
resources are being spent.

Note: it's Eagle County, near Vail; there's no Eagleton.

As for whether or not this could "possibly be the first time Kobe did 
such a thing," what he did or did not do is still undetermined. No 
prior complaints *could* simply mean that his judgement was at least 
a bit better before July of this year: he may have chosen women who 
were thrilled enough to be the recipient of his attention to be 
unlikely to complain if the form it took was unacceptable or even 
illegal.

> Cindy -- whose default position is that the reason women report rape
> is that they were *raped,* and who would never wind up seated on a
> sexual assault case jury

Sandy, who doesn't have a default position in rape cases, and who 
hopes she'd be able to be an effective juror if asked