Bryant charged with felony sexual assault

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by Seeds Of Hate
Dang. Kobe has been 24 years old since 1996?

ROTFL, how did that get past the editors?

 

[SirStefan32]

Originally posted by JJ Slim
That isn't always the case. My father was accused of a criminal offense and he has never committed a crime. Fortunately the justice system did work in this case.

I have been accused of several crimes. Some I committed, some I didn't. (These were all when I was much younger, btw). In one case, one in which I had not committed a crime, I was forced to plea bargain because if I had allowed it to go to trial, I would likely have been found guilty. And then there were other times where I was guilty and I got off completely. There is definitely no consistency in the courts.

Like I said, I disagree with that statement. Anybody can be accused of a crime he hasn't committed, even a rich white person. The difference is that a disadvantaged person is much more likely to end up in jail of a crime they didn't commit because they couldn't afford decent lawyers.

OK, so what do you propose that we do? You have a better system in mind?

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by SirStefan32
OK, so what do you propose that we do? You have a better system in mind?

I doubt that he could (have a better system in mind).

We do have the best system, but it does have flaws. Just like anything man made, there are systemic flaws that are hard to avoid, but over time have been wrinkled out more and more.

O.J. Simpson proved that a minority could get a fair trial, and get off even though he looked very guilty to most observers.

This country has come a long way.

 

[KloD]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
O.J. Simpson proved that a minority could get a fair trial, and get off even though he looked very guilty to most observers.
This country has come a long way.

I think the victims would disagree that the system is fair.

 

[SirStefan32]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
I doubt that he could (have a better system in mind).

We do have the best system, but it does have flaws. Just like anything man made, there are systemic flaws that are hard to avoid, but over time have been wrinkled out more and more.

Exactly. The system is about as good as it can be, but it has flaws.

My grandfather was a lawyer in Yugoslavia during Tito's reign, and compared to that system, our system is pure heaven.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I'll throw another wrinkle into the discussion:

Woman had crisis at UNC
Alleged rape victim was hospitalized as 'a danger to herself'


By Peggy Lowe and Jeff Kass, Rocky Mountain News
July 25, 2003

The young woman who says Kobe Bryant raped her was taken to a Greeley hospital last February by UNC police because she was "a danger to herself."

The incident on Feb. 25 in her college dorm room is the second report that's surfaced about the 19-year-old woman's mental health. Both reports involve events before the woman accused the basketball star of assaulting her at an Eagle County resort on June 30.

The woman's friends have said she overdosed on drugs last spring.

The Eagle Valley High School graduate was a freshman at the University of Northern Colorado last school year. She is in Eagle this summer while working at the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera in Edwards.

In the Feb. 25 incident, UNC police in Greeley were called to the woman's dorm room at 9:05 p.m.

"The officer determined she was a danger to herself," UNC Police Chief Terry Urista said Thursday. "He took her into protective custody and she was transported to the local hospital."

Urista wouldn't give any more information, saying details on mental health reports are barred from the public.

Asked if the woman would consider suicide, her friend, Ashley Scriver, a 19-year-old from Eagle County, said, "She's not the type to do this."

Thursday's revelation drives further drama into an already highly charged tale of a sexual encounter that two people describe very differently. The woman says she was assaulted; Bryant admits he committed adultery but says the sex was consensual.

The latest information also inflamed the two sides in the legal battle - Denver criminal defense attorney Craig Silverman called it "another tremendous development for the defense and a huge blow to the prosecution."

Victim advocates urged people to keep an open mind and not make any judgments until the trial bares all the facts.

"The victim in this case doesn't need to be scrutinized," said Cynthia Stone of the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. "This is one of the reasons women don't report sexual assaults."

Bryant's defense team must give the jury some reasons why a woman would make a false rape allegation, Silverman said. Mental instability is at the top of that list, he said.

"They're going to argue 'You're right, a normal woman would not make up an allegation of this kind,' " Silverman said. "Given what we know about the last six months of this alleged victim's life, she has been going through all sorts of mental difficulties."

The defense could also argue that she's self-destructive, Silverman said, suggesting that she could have inflicted injuries on herself.

Silverman also said that there are certain "thresholds" an accused person doesn't want to cross - arrest, being charged, going to trial, a conviction, an incarceration. Bryant has already been arrested and charged; now he should hope for a dismissal of his case, Silverman said.

"If I'm Kobe Bryant, I'm telling my lawyers I will pay you a lot of money to gain an acquittal here. I will pay you a lot more money to get a dismissal," he said.

"He doesn't want to cross any more thresholds," Silverman said. "The value of these disclosures is it makes it difficult for the victim to sustain her desire to go forward."

 

[SirStefan32]

Just as I predicted, her past is biting her in the, well, you know where.

 

[JJ Slim]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
I doubt that he could (have a better system in mind).

I'm not quite sure how to take that, Krangster.

 

[JJ Slim]

Originally posted by SirStefan32
OK, so what do you propose that we do? You have a better system in mind?

Honestly , I hadn't given it much thought. The framework that we have in place is good but it needs some serious tweaking.

Somethings I might change:
1. Somehow limit legal fees, either by all lawyers being employees of the state, or at least have both sides of a dispute have their attorney's pulled from a pool and have the court pay them a fixed amount so that neither side has a financial advantage. This would be very tough to put in place and there would be too much resistance for it to ever have a chance.

2. Have jurors be at least semi-intelligent. Most are dumb as rocks. Maybe even have professional jurors. I know that goes against the "group of your peers" thing but maybe the constitution needs a bit of tweaking itself to update it.

3. Another thing would be the ability to judge each case individually. In other words, while following the law to the letter is great, sometimes common sense is more appropriate. Allow a judge or jury to make judgement calls. This would require the wisdom of King Solomon and once again is probably not possible because not only would it be hard to find a person, much less a group, capable of that but even if you did it the chances for abuse are great.

 

[SirStefan32]

You do make some interesting points.

Being a capitalist that I am, I just don't like the idea of Lawyers being employed by the state. I don't want to get into a political discussion on this board though.

Having said that, there are some advantages to that. I like the way they do things in England- attorneys do both- defense and prosecution. That way you avoid DA's arrogance and self- righteousness and you avoid the defense attorneys' cinicism.

I couldn't agree more about the need for an intelligent jury. It would be great if there was a way to have 12 people who went to law school instead of 12 anybody's.

 

[SirStefan32]

Originally posted by JJ Slim
3. Another thing would be the ability to judge each case individually. In other words, while following the law to the letter is great, sometimes common sense is more appropriate. Allow a judge or jury to make judgement calls. This would require the wisdom of King Solomon and once again is probably not possible because not only would it be hard to find a person, much less a group, capable of that but even if you did it the chances for abuse are great.

Well, the judges have a lot of room for making judgement calls.
If you give them too much power, you said it- it would be abused.

 

[SirStefan32]

Originally posted by JJ Slim
have both sides of a dispute have their attorney's pulled from a pool and have the court pay them a fixed amount so that neither side has a financial advantage.

I would have to disagree with that. That is not fair to good attorneys. That is kind of like saying that a straight A student is the same as a C student.

It is like paying Stephon Marbury and Jake Tsakalidis the same amount.

 

[JJ Slim]

Originally posted by SirStefan32
It is like paying Stephon Marbury and Jake Tsakalidis the same amount.

Strangely enough, because of the way salaries have gotten out of control, that is exactly one of the ideas I had. Have a set rate for each player based upon the number of years he has played. Give them a healthy raise each year that tops out after about 8 years or so. There would have to have some type of performance incentives too, maybe a 50-100% bonus. Allow each team a certain amount of bonuses, something like 2 at 100%, 2 at 75%, 2 at 50% and 2 at 25%. On top of that maybe a bonus to be divided evenly among all players on a team based upon team record.

 

[Errntknght]

JJSlim wrote, "Another thing would be the ability to judge each case individually. In other words, while following the law to the letter is great, sometimes common sense is more appropriate."

Judges do have a lot of lattitude in controlling the procedure of a trial, though if they break with precedents they may run afoul of the appeals courts. Usually they have quite a bit of scope in setting the punishments when a conviction is made.

Jurors, too, have more lattitude than most people think. It is a principle of American law that a jury can decide the specific law is at fault rather than the person on trial and return a 'not guilty' verdict even though it was established that the person did break the law as charged. This principle is under attack - the last time I sat on a jury the judge instructed us before the trial started that we were required to return a guilty verdict if it was established that the person broke the law and got very irate when I disagreed with her about that. In fact, she tried to get me to excuse myself from sitting on the jury. (Nothing came of it as an eleventh hour 'deal' aborted the trial.)

 

[SirStefan32]

And another thing- judges can overrule jury's verdict.

 

[elindholm]

And another thing- judges can overrule jury's verdict.

I believe the judge can overturn a guilty verdict, but not a not-guilty one.

 

[SirStefan32]

Correct. I should have been more specific.

Stefan

 

[Errntknght]

I don't believe a judge can overrule a jury's verdict in any case - my understanding is that even an appeals court can't overturn a jury's verdict directly. Is there a legal scholar in here who can give chapter and verse about this? I suppose it would make sense if while the jury is deliberating another person confessed to the crime in question but why wouldn't the judge just terminate the trial before the verdict was read.

 

[Renz]

Originally posted by Errntknght
I don't believe a judge can overrule a jury's verdict in any case - my understanding is that even an appeals court can't overturn a jury's verdict directly. Is there a legal scholar in here who can give chapter and verse about this? I suppose it would make sense if while the jury is deliberating another person confessed to the crime in question but why wouldn't the judge just terminate the trial before the verdict was read.

elindholm is correct. If a judge thinks that, in his/her opinion that the facts of the case clearly called for a jury to acquit, but they convicted anyway, then the judge can throw out the guilty verdict and set the defendant free. It is my understanding that if a judge does that then it is considered the same as a "not guilty" verdict and the defendant cannot be tried again, although I'm not sure about that.

It is also correct that a "not guilty" verdict cannot be overturned.

 

[SirStefan32]

Originally posted by Errntknght
I don't believe a judge can overrule a jury's verdict in any case - my understanding is that even an appeals court can't overturn a jury's verdict directly. Is there a legal scholar in here who can give chapter and verse about this? I suppose it would make sense if while the jury is deliberating another person confessed to the crime in question but why wouldn't the judge just terminate the trial before the verdict was read.

Judges can overturn jury's verdicts.

However, they can only overturn guilty verdicts.

They can only overturn guilty verdicts for two reasons:

1. If there is not enough evidence to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but a jury returns a guilty verdict.

I remember that the Judge threw out jury's guilty verdict in that San Francisco case involving Knoller's dogs killing a neighbour.

2. Formalities/ Miscondacts, etc.
For example, if jurors do outside research, visit the crime scene, etc; DA's office hiding crucial evidence, and other mistakes that would promp the higher court to reverse the verdict.

Judges hate using this power because the prosecutors can appeal their decision to a higher court, judges might have to go through all kinds of questioning, etc.

 

[devilalum]

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/wiley/030725.html

Here's a quote from the ESPN article:

Nope. That doesn't track. Especially not now, since I have a copy of the timeline; whatever happened, happened between 11:14 p.m. on June 29 and 12:35 a .m. on June 30. A 19-year-old hotel employee goes off duty at 11 p.m. A phone call is made from Kobe's room at 11:13 p.m., apparently to the Newport Beach house where his wife Vanessa and their daughter are staying. To me, this is classic screw-around mode, not I'm-about-to-commit-a-felony mode. By calling he pre-empts the surprise call from home that will interrupt the planned festivities. Then, whatever happened happened. And by 12:36 a.m., a pay-per-view movie is ordered in Kobe's room.

This is the kind of logic that got OJ off.

What if Kobe thought he was going to screw around but the girl showed up and wasn't willing. Kobe gets mad, rapes her, she leaves and he orders a movie.

Wouldn't this match the timeline as well?

The ESPN author seems to think that this timeline proves Kobe's innocense

He then goes on:

Accompanied by her parents, alleged victim reports alleged assault at 12 noon June 30 to Eagle County Sheriff, is then taken to Vail Valley Medical Center to undergo tests. What's Kobe's motive? When's he had time to covet something enough to take it? And why that lag time between act and report? What happens if she mentions it, and to whom? The Kobe I know wouldn't bust a grape. When he tries to act hard, like making a rap album, or in that Sprite commercial, where he's shown working out in a boxing ring, punching into mitts held by what is ostensibly a trainer, I shake my head. It's inauthentic. My gut instinct says no. There is the 20 percent chance I could be wrong. Kobe's guilty of being stupid, not guilty of a crime, that's my gut, although I remind Kobe and all the young brothers: If you are playing with the black pieces, stupidity can become a felony, a crime punishable by jail, and even death.

Or maybe she's embarrased and humiliated and is trying to avoid others thinking she may just want to forget about it. I've heard theat many rape victims never report the crime because they feel like it will just add to their humiliation. Then her parents see the bruises on her face, start asking questions, etc...She confesses what happened and her parents tell her she needs to go to the police etc...

This guy is so arrogant its unbeliveable. I can't believe that ESPN published this garbage. And the quote about the "black pieces" give me a break. Kobe will have lawyers that 99% of the white pieces could never afford.

 

[rkellysunsfan]

What if Kobe thought he was going to screw around but the girl showed up and wasn't willing. Kobe gets mad, rapes her, she leaves and he orders a movie.

By saying that you're assuming that Kobe then felt no guilt about raping somebody. Even if Kobe thought he was going to have sex with the girl and she declined, and he then raped her to get what he thought he was going to get, he'd almost certainly feel some type of anxiety after committing a crime of this type of multitude. You rent a paper-view movie in a hotel room after you've had a long day and just want to settle down and go to sleep, not after you just raped a girl who, odds are, the next morning is going to go to the cops and you're going to be in the sh*tstorm of your life. Especially when the guy had never committed a crime before in his life.

 

[devilalum]

Originally posted by rkellysunsfan
By saying that you're assuming that Kobe then felt no guilt about raping somebody. Even if Kobe thought he was going to have sex with the girl and she declined, and he then raped her to get what he thought he was going to get, he'd almost certainly feel some type of anxiety after committing a crime of this type of multitude. You rent a paper-view movie in a hotel room after you've had a long day and just want to settle down and go to sleep, not after you just raped a girl who, odds are, the next morning is going to go to the cops and you're going to be in the sh*tstorm of your life. Especially when the guy had never committed a crime before in his life.

You're right. You can make up any story you want because the only people that really know what happened are Kobe and the girl and the facts we have are few. My point is that it is very irresponsible for a reporter to make up a story like that and for ESPN to put it on their web site.

The reason I posted an opposite story was to illustrate the fact that you can make up lots of stories to go with the known facts. This is how Johnny Cochran talked a jury into believing OJ was innocent.

 

[PhiLLmattiC]

But...O.J. was innocent.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by PhiLLmattiC
But...O.J. was innocent.

No, he was found "Not Guilty."

The jury was unable to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he hacked his ex-wife's head nearly off and killed her waiter-friend also.

They did not say "He didn't do it."