Kobe Bryant case - Rape Shield Law

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 24, 2004, 4:56 pm

I apologize for posting this in near ignorance of the topic. I was hoping that some of the more legal-minded people here could help me to understand this aspect of the case that's coming up today.

Specifically: I heard an interview with a legal analyst on a local radio talk show speaking about the Kobe Bryant case, and specifically the hearing that the judge is considering today about allowing prior sexual encounters by the defendant into case evidence.

According to the reports, the woman had various evidence of sexual intercourse while she was being administered the rape kit. Apparently the examination by doctors done on her occured approximately 15 hours after the accused rape and there was evidence that she had possibly had intercourse with at least one other man between the time the rape occured and the time doctors were able to administer the tests.

Apparently it was discovered that she had residual semen on her thighs and vaginal area that were not from Kobe, and that her undergarments contained (a) pubic hair and/or semen from one other individual (different from Kobe's and the semen found on her thigh.)

Defense attorneys are stipulating that her prior or post-sexual acts should be admitted to evidence, which opens the floodgates of speculation that she was not in fact raped, or that she was a slut, basically making her the defendant. Prosecuters are trying to shield this evidence from being admitted under a "Rape Shield Law" that supposedly states that prior sexual acts are inadmissable unless specifically related to the events that occured during the rape.

I found the discussion and callers comments, (including a male attorney whose vibrant and excited phone call shot down her statements with laser precision before a commercial break caused the hosts to end the call), highly introspective. I wanted to see if someone could clarify the legal terminology here and the law that is in question in this case, and maybe get a little bit of a discussion going regarding instances in this case.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 24, 2004, 5:00 pm

Fwiw, imo, the fact that she had sex after Kobe gives reasonable doubt as to who it was that raped her.. if she was, infact, raped at all.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 24, 2004, 6:37 pm

the point of rape shield laws are to keep other types of sexual activity out of the trial because they aren't supposed to be relevant. in other words, she could be the biggest tramp in the world and be peddling herself out on the street for 5 bucks an hour, but that doesn't take away from the fact that if she was raped then she was raped. ideally its to keep pit bull type defense attorneys from calling into question the morality of the accusor. without rape shield laws, many rape trials basically turned into circuses where the victim was put on trial by the defense attorney and her sexual history was paraded out in front of the jury and/or the judge to try and paint a picture that the rape victim was a slut who wanted it at the time.

of course on the other side of the coin, the accused cannot be denied his right to a competent defense, and past sexual history cannot be discounted in a situation like this. its especially relevant if she had sex shortly after being as roughly raped and violated as she claims she was. I've never been raped before, but I can imagine if I was I probably wouldn't be up to hopping into the sack with my ex-boyfriend a day later.

rape trials like this are always sticky because it comes down to a battle of lawyers. It's pretty much kobe's word against hers as to whether or not the sex was consensual, so whoever can convince a jury more successfully is the one who will win the case, regardless of guilt. of course, even if kobe loses, he will win on appeal because an appeals court would have to find him not guilty because there is no solid evidence that a rape occured. a guilty verdict in the jury trial would probably destroy his career though.

this is why its so, so important for women to use their fucking brains in this kind of situation. it sucks and it's not fair, but the reality is, if you are young and attractive and you are invited into some guy's hotel room for any reason, do not go in unless you intend to fuck him because that is pretty much all he wants out of you. a guy like kobe bryant isn't going to be interested in chatting it up with some 18 year old blonde bumpkin from dryhump county colorado. he's going to want to stick his dick in her though.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 24, 2004, 6:47 pm

This is a very interesting topic.

Basically, the rape shield law exists to protect rape victims from character bashing. Plenty of unscrupulous lawyers will dig up every past sexual act on the part of the victim, and draw the dubious conclusion that "she said yes before, so she must have said yes this time." It only works because the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and you can often find a few jurors who can find reasonable doubt in such a defense, provided it's a typical he-said-she-said rape case.

Theoretically, if this was allowed to continue, it would basically mean that sexually active women would be unable to prosecute rape cases, because reasonable doubt could almost always be found by painting the woman as a slut. This would lead to the unacceptable conclusion that a sexually active woman cannot say no to sex.

Others find this to be faulty reasoning.

There's the equal protection issue that Kobe's lawyers specifically are bringing up: If the defendant's sexual history is valid, then barring the sexual history of the alleged victim is denying him equal protection under the law.

Further, in many cases, sexual history can be relevant. This one is a prime example. The woman in question had vaginal injuries. If questions in regards to her sexual history are inadmissable, the jury will be forced to conclude that these injuries were caused by Kobe. However, the defense alleges that the woman slept with other men directly before sleeping with Kobe, and that she had sex with another man after having sex with Kobe but before going to the hospital. If these allegations are true, then it's entirely possible that the injuries she sustained could have been from another partner, not Kobe. Clearly, that fact is relevant to the case.

There's tons of theoretical cases that can be cooked up by either side to defend or attack the rape shield law. I'd be very curious to know what people on this board think.

Edit: Kyou beat me to it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 24, 2004, 7:04 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Fwiw, imo, the fact that she had sex after Kobe gives reasonable doubt as to who it was that raped her.. if she was, infact, raped at all.

Unless she went to the hospital and reported the rape after having sex a second time, that wouldn't matter. If she went to have photographs and medical evidence taken after screwing another guy post-kobe then the case should be thrown out.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 24, 2004, 7:23 pm

Why would you go fuck some other guy after being raped?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 24, 2004, 7:29 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:Why would you go fuck some other guy after being raped?

She was horny?

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 24, 2004, 7:37 pm

One of the interesting points that was brought up by the male attorney who called in to the talk show was that he asked: "How many innocent men are now in prison because of this rape shield law?" The female attorney/legal advisor (I'm really sorry I can't remember her name, and I think I failed to mention that she was a Bar certified and practicing attorney) replied with: "Probably a lot" before rambling into a line of women's rights feminazi propaganda trash.

I'm reminded of a quote, and I can't remember who said it but it went to the extent of "I would rather see 100 convicted men set free than see one innocent man go to jail." I'm sure Arbo will be able to fill us all in on the exact verbiage and propagator of the quote.

As much as I distain rapists and think they should all be shot, for the damage that a rape conviction does to a person, I would really prefer that laws like this be extremely flexible so that in cases where men are unfairly accused of rape by angry ex-lovers or men confused for the real rapist don't go to jail.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 24, 2004, 7:45 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:Why would you go fuck some other guy after being raped?

I have no clue why. That's why her story is highly suspect.

On the flip side of kyoukan's comments guys should be a little more cautious about who they bed down. Maybe this case will teach other high-profile athletes the reprecusions of having on the fly sex with complete strangers.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » March 24, 2004, 8:06 pm

I saw an interview with Dennis Rodman's former head bodyguard right after the Kobe case broke.

Basically, he thought that it was a failure of personal security that such an issue came up at all. Basically, he said that he protected his clients in at least two ways from situations like this... a) he didn't let any non-known woman into the room unless he was present/nearby... and b) if, at any point, the woman seemed to be reluctant and/or said no, she was bundled up and kicked out of the room.

Kobe had crappy personal bodyguards who did not have his best interest in mind when they let that woman into the room... whether or not it was a rape will be decided at trial, but he should have known better to create the situation where such an accusation could take place. And he needs to go find a new security agency to run his show.

Animale

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 24, 2004, 8:25 pm

Nice to be able to blame bodyguards when a person rapes someone.

Kobe: Da biatch shouldn't have been in my room! I had to rape her on principle! Throw my bodyguards in the joint, not me!

Judge: wurd

Victim: I had sex right after kobe because although he raped me, he didn't satisfy my needs.

Judge: coo

Verdict: Kobe must spend 2 million on better bodyguards and must purchase a sybian for the victim.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 24, 2004, 8:27 pm

Winnow wrote:Nice to be able to blame bodyguards when a person rapes someone.

Kobe: Da biatch shouldn't have been in my room! I had to rape her on principle! Throw my bodyguards in the joint, not me!

Judge: wurd

Victim: I had sex right after kobe because although he raped me, he didn't satisfy my needs.

Judge: coo

Verdict: Kobe must spend 2 million on better bodyguards and must purchase a sybian for the victim.

That wasn't offensive enough, kick it up a notch.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 24, 2004, 8:34 pm

I think winnow is actually working on some kind of scientific theory of anti-funny, which is some mysterious force that somehow sucks any remote glimmer of humor from anything he says.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 24, 2004, 8:42 pm

The point is it's absurd to blame bodyguards for the alleged rape in the Kobe Bryant case. The rest was bonus levity demonstrating how ridiculous the arguments put forth thus far would sound in court.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 24, 2004, 8:57 pm

I am looking and looking and not seeing where anyone is blaming bodyguards. Certainly no one here is, nor is anyone in this trial that I can see. I see someone who said a good bodyguard would have avoided that situation, which by itself is debatable at best. It certainly is part of a good celebrity security guard's job to keep their ward out of trouble. That includes keeping them safe from potential scandals like this.

I don't even think Kobe Bryant travels with security guards. And if he does he probably dismissed them for the evening. He's a basketball star, not the president.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » March 24, 2004, 9:05 pm

All the former Rodman bodyguard (and through extension me, i guess) was saying Winnow is that if he had proper security personnel, the situation that resulted in the rape/rape accusation would not have taken place. I was not blaming security for the actual event, and would never do so. This guy was just saying that if you are in a position of fame, you cannot ever get into situations where you can be accused of shit.

Of course, if he really was out to rape a woman then even the best security can't protect you from yourself (although they can try).

Animale

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 24, 2004, 9:38 pm

kyoukan wrote:
I don't even think Kobe Bryant travels with security guards. And if he does he probably dismissed them for the evening. He's a basketball star, not the president.

Animale wrote:
Kobe had crappy personal bodyguards who did not have his best interest in mind when they let that woman into the room...
Animale

I see assumptions and guesswork here. Chill out on my retort unless you know wtf you're talking about!

I don't see where I blamed bodyguards either except in a mock dialogue. After animale's comments about crappy bodyguards I offered up a response.

blah blah blah.

Stalker Vacio · Post by **Stalker Vacio** » March 24, 2004, 10:20 pm

http://www.freekobe.com/

because were running out of heros

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 24, 2004, 10:26 pm

Winnow wrote:The point is it's absurd to blame bodyguards for the alleged rape in the Kobe Bryant case. The rest was bonus levity demonstrating how ridiculous the arguments put forth thus far would sound in court.

You're still the only one who blamed the bodyguards, mock-retort or not. Rodman's bodyguard gave a bodyguards perspective on what they do, but I didn't read anything about him blaming Kobe's guards for the purported rape. Just because you're always "joking" whenever you post something you're called on doesn't make it any different.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 24, 2004, 11:05 pm

Bodyguards don't have anything to do with the Kobe case. Losing focus in these celebrity screw ups happens all the time.

I'm not sure what you're getting at as my mockery is as relevant as the comments about Rodman's bodyguards babysitting him so he doesn't run into trouble. It doesn't matter how stupid these famous people are, it still is their repsonsibility to look out for themselves ultimately.

Kobe's a married man. I don't see any other angle from the comments made than trying to make the case that Kobe is too stupid to lookout for himself and know that fucking another woman while married will eventually get you into trouble especially if you're famous.