I was fascinated by the OJ Case… even braved the lines to attend a court session. Watching it was like watching the train wreck of train wrecks. You couldn’t believe a defendant so obviously guilty of multiple murder.. with blood evidence everywhere but up his nostrils (maybe it was).. was going to get off. And he did! The Kobe Case is just the opposite. Almost all the evidence available so far points to his innocence, remarkably so, but who knows what will happen?
The best anaylsis of the case I have read so far is by attorney Joanna Spilbor who writes on her excellent site The Kobe Bryant Case Why Prosecutors Should Dismiss It. She even urges the prosecutors to apologize to Bryant. But she doesn’t expect that. That would be, as she says, a “Hollywood ending.” And she even sees a downside in dismissal (which many are now predicting) for Kobe:
For one thing, he has invested a year of his life – and probably immense sums of money – in the hope of vindicating himself. Odds are, at trial, he would get that vindication. Granted, juries are unpredictable – but he could always waive his right to a jury trial and request that he be tried in front the judge. And there is just too much evidence for Bryant’s innocence, I believe, to convince twelve jurors he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
There’s another advantage, too, to going to trial: The accuser would have to take the stand, reluctantly or otherwise, and tell her story — thereby preserving her testimony for all eternity. Every discrepancy, every misstatement would be recorded for use against her in her civil trial. If her testimony was weak enough, the civil suit might disappear – or be settled for a pittance.
Will Kobe be on trial in Colorado on August 27? (People like me think he’s more needed in Athens.) The clock is ticking.
Don’t worry, he’ll be able to prove his innocence and cross-exam the accuser in the civil case.
I have a feeling that no matter what happens in the criminal case, there won’t be a civil case. Out of court settlement is a bit easier when it’s strictly money involved (and not someone’s political career). And it would appear that money is the primary factor in the case’s origin.
Prosecutors can be dangerous critters. I don’t know if it’s the constant exposure to criminals, or ambition, or both, but they sometimes go after people when they shouldn’t. I also suspect that criminal attorneys, no matter which side they are on, get desensitized to the meaning of taking away someone’s freedom for years.
When I hear people talk about this case, about him being able to save his reputation by doing a trial… do they really think that this is worth risking life in jail? There is no way I would take such a risk. To the prosecutors and defense attorneys, it’s a ritualized contest. To the defendent (at least in this case), it’s a chance (no matter how small) of losing his freedom forever. That’s a slightly different focus.
I have a friend who is a Juvenile PD. She thinks that in her career she might have once had an innocent client, but she’s not sure. Imagine the impact of that sort of environment on the instincts one develops.
Disclaimer: I’m not an attorney, and my only encounter with a trial was as a witness where all seemed reasonable (other than the inability to locate the defendant – found guilty in absentia).
The Kobe case is of minor interest (unless, like Roger, you are a basketball fan). It would appear that the “victim” is either mentally disturbed in a way that has bearing on the case, or is a, well, slut, and Kobe a cad.
The OJ case, on the other hand, was shocking. It caused me to realize the depth of difference in outlook between the black and white population. Who could look more guilty than OJ? The evidence was outstanding. I guess the case turned on Mark Furman’s unfortunate comments made in a different venue, and the gloves not fitting. What a travesty! Let’s hope he doesn’t kill again.
I’ve always wondered what the polls among Latinos and Asians said re: the OJ case.
I have almost no opinion as to whether Kobe Bryant is guilty or not because I’ve pretty much lost interest due to the extreme overexposure of the case. However, I do know that what we “know” is almost solely from leaks from the defense and the hospital where the accuser was treated, the court reporter and the judges office. If she was raped the process continues on by almost every institution and entity that have been designed to protect her.
I’m a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer. However, I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that if Kobe does go to a jury trial, the jury will convict him.
What no one seems to understand about this case is that Eagle County has a population of something like 40,000 people, only about 3,000 of whom are year-round residents. The jury pool probably largely consists of be working-class people who are employed in the tourism industry for low pay. They stick together and do not like the rich, arrogant outsiders who order them around.
People in big cities don’t really understand what this means.
The alleged victim is a teenaged girl — a local girl. She is only nineteen years old! She works part-time in a hotel. She is not a stripper, an exotic dancer, a hanger-on, or a woman who travels in fast circles. She’s an ordinarly young woman who leads an honest and unglamorous life.
Who is Kobe Bryant, on the other hand? A millonaire celebrity basketball player. He’s probably indulged in every sybaritic pleasure known to man. Girls like the accuser are nothing to him; he takes what he wants and discards them at whim. Certainly his marriage vows mean very little. It’s not a stretch to say that professional athletes probably don’t have much respect for women and are quite capable of refusing to take no for an answer.
And he’s probably also very arrogant. He is used to getting what he wants, when he wants it. That’s not surprising; he is, after all, a celebrity and a millionare. But the jury won’t like the arrogance. Kobe won’t be able to hide it; he’s too used to being a celebrity. The jury will know that Kobe can buy and sell them ten times over. He’s just the kind of cocky rich asshole who loudly complains to them at work about trivial things, is curt and dismissive of them, and otherwise makes their lives miserable.
Imagine the accuser taking the witness stand and looking at the jury. She’s young. She’s pretty. She’s vulnerable. They’ve seen her in the street many times! Many of the jurors know her mother, and all of them know someone who is friends with her family. She tells what happened and starts to cry. As for the sex? She wanted reassurance. She wasn’t thinking of preserving Kobels semen samples DNA testing; she wanted a nice local boy to hold her and tell her that it wasn’t her fault, she was still attractive, etc. She was emotionally devastated and confused! She reached out to the first person who seemed to care!
Now remeber that the accuser has been savaged by the media for over a year. They’ve accused her of being a slut, a gold-digger, and crazy. This nice, hardworking young local girl. Who graduated from Eagle High just last year. The media was responsible for much of this, true, but Kobe and his lawyers will be blamed for it.
The jury is going to have a very simple choice. Who do you believe, the nice young local girl, or the arrogant millionaire athlete from Los Angeles, California? The jury is going to feel tremendous pressure to believe the nice young local girl. No one will feel any natural affinity for or kinship with Kobe, on the other hand.
I actually don’t think that racial prejudice will have much of an impact on the jury’s decision. They’d convict Ben Affleck too.
Please note that I personally could never convivt Kobe. To me, there is reasonable doubt. But I do beleive that if Kobe goes to trial before a jury, he’s going to get convicted.
Kobe has excellent, excellent lawyers. They are well aware of the situation I have described above and are preparing for it. And for all I know, everyone in Eagle County knows that this little girl is a crazy slut who belongs in teh loony bin. But assuming that she’s nothing more than a promiscuous local girl, there is only so much Kobe’s lawyers can do to her. In the end, it’s going to come down to a choice between her and Kobe, and I think jurors would probably choose Kobe.
oops sorry I meant they’d choose her. They’ll send Kobe to prison.
I really don’t know whether the man is guilty or not. That is to be determined by the evidence, and I for one don’t consider “leaks” which are delivered to us through the distorted lens of media accoumts to rise to that level. Let us hope that justice is done, but let us not prejudge the outcome based upon rumors and innuendo. That is a path to a destination to which none of us really should want to go.
Not being a lawyer, I’m probably too naive.
What ever happened to a requirement of quilty without any doubt?
There is enough information out there, the apparently cannot be suppressed, to create a lot of doubt.
If the people vote out of parochialism, they would be doing a great injustice. Even a town of 4000 should have some potential jurors who will look at the evidence and develop some doubt.
On the other hand, they might not. Which is why I think that given the choice, Kobe would not go for the trial.
ìDon’t worry, he’ll be able to prove his innocence and cross-exam the accuser in the civil caseî
Ainít gonna happen. Kobe Bryant is far better off giving her some money and getting the matter behind him. A civil case is still a physically and emotionally draining experience. On top of that, Kobe needs to focus on basketball and attracting some new product endorsements.
I donít consider Kobe to be an innocent victim. Itís just that his accuser leaves too much to be desired. Did he rape her? I suspect that Kobe was more than a little persistent—and felt that he was owed sex (this attitude of entitlement is the norm for many high profile athletes). Alas, he probably also acted coldly and indifferent to her after the sex act was completed. Kobe may have avoided a lot of grief had he encouraged her to stay over for the night and spend some time with him the following morning.
The small town/home cooking thing cuts both ways. One thing Joe leaves out is that many of the jurors will have been steeped in the local gossip about the accuser. It will be impossible to get a jury that comes to this trial without a pretty clear idea about the accuser’s character and credibility, and that may not be a good thing for her. Don’t underestimate the malice and resentment that simmers in small towns, and a pretty woman is by no means immune from it.
Gee, Roger, as a screenwriter and novelist, does anyone ever ask where you get your ideas?
Joe, I do not have your experience and I know nothing about the case other than bare facts and what I read on Rogerís blog, but do you know for a fact all these things about Kobe – I mean that he is an arrogant bastard who treats anybody less wealthy like dirt, and all women as playtoys? You assume that he will show these exacts traits in court. How if he appears sensitive and humble on the witness stand?
What bothers me is the assumption that wealth automatically = arrogance and nastiness. Yes, I know, we have examples aplenty. But you do not have to be a wealthy to be arrogant, nasty asshole. I have met people like that in all walks of life ñ for whatever reason sciences are particularly fertile ground, though there is not much money there. Same goes for ìartistsî (which in SF means everybody; even an elevator repairman claims to be in reality a filmmaker).
You are making huge assumptions about the jury. I know that juries are supposed to be selected for a low IQ, but sometimes things slipfrom lawyer’s control
Personal experience may influence the way the juror will vote, but nobody can predict exactly how. I was a juror on medical malpractice case (horrible outcome of infant meningitis). Interestingly, one juror (union guy, working in the docks) was initially very eager to nail the doctor because of personal experience (his daughterís messed up surgery would have been a prime case for malpractice, but doctors covered for each other and it went nowhere). As the evidence unfolded, he changed his mind; there simply was not enough of it for conviction. Another juror, a young student whose sister was a doctor voted for conviction. Both men were convinced that their interpretation of evidence was right ñ sympathy for the victim did not enter into evaluating evidence. (For the record, I voted for the acquittal, and such was the verdict).
R C Deanís point is valid, too. What if the girlís reputation in town is not so good? In such case having local women on the jury may cook her goose. Also, some jurors may be jealous of her getting all the award money.
The way I look at it, the outcome of a trial is not certain at all.
Roger,
I watched the OJ trial beginning to end. (between assignments as we consultants like to say).
I also follow the drug war and know that police regularly lie to make their cases. Ever hear of “testilying”?
It sure looked to me like the police “enhanced” the evidence (in an effort to nail a “guilty” man – I’m agnostic leaning to guilty). The jury came to the same conclusion. If the police were evidence tampering which evidence would you trust? Only that evidence not in police custody. i.e. none.
I said at the time this was a wake up call to improve lab procedures and get the liars and evidence “enhancers” off the force. Well OJ was guilty!!! Nothing to see here except a runaway jury. Move along.
Then we get the Rampart scandal a few years later. Police comitting murder. What’s a little evidence tampering among friends when there is murder to do? Gave a man a 24 year sentence based on tampered evidence.
Vindicated? Nope. It is still about OJ. Not the screw ups on the LAPD.
Oh. Well.
===================
Do you know how John Kerry got a piece of shrapnel buried in his leg?
You don’t?
That is all right. Neither does John.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
Katherine-
What I am trying to say is that the jurors will go into the courtroom with a set of preconcieved notions. You are right that jurors are not slaves to prejudice, and they cannot be stereotyped. Rural juries do not consist of parochial rubes who are determined to stick it to “furriners” no matter what the evidence says. I’ve never tried a case before a rural jury, though I have spent plenty of time in front of rural judges, and in my experience rural courtrooms are very fair. Actually, I find the quality of lawyering to be a little bit higher in the rural areas. Everyone has more time to really focus on the issues, and incompetent lawyers have no place to hide in a county of 3,000, so the bad ones get weeded out fast. Moreover, big, wealthy, out-of-state companies win their cases in front of rural juries on a regular basis. Defense verdicts are not uncommon. Rural juries are very fair.
The Eagle County jury will not be prejudiced. The people on it will try their best to be conscientious and fair. They will also, however, have a set of preconceived notions.
They don’t know Kobe. All they know is that he’s a millionaire athlete who casually and coldly cheated on his wife. He is a total stranger to them.
They may or may not know the accuser, but they know plenty of girls just like her. She could be their sister, their daughter, or their granddaughter.
Everyone wants to assume that “regular folks” are honest, trustworthy, likable people. Total strangers don’t get that assumption. This isn’t parochialism; it’s simply the normal human desire to identify with your own and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Now, this wouldn’t count for much if the issue before the jury were, say, the valuation of a piece of real estate. There you just look at the numbers offered by each side and see whcih set seems more reasonable and realistic.
But this case is somewhat unusual in that it’s a pure battle of credibility. It’s he said/she said. The jurors will want to believe the local girl over the total stranger.
Also, if she’s got any cooborating evidence AT ALL, they will almost certainly believe her. If a front desk clerk says she came out of Kobe’s room in tears, Kobe is in big trouble.
Caveat: what I have said applies mostly to male jurors. In a rape case, females tend to be much more skeptical of the accuser. The more women there are on Kobe’s jury, the better his chances will be.
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/08/judicial_watch_.html
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today filed a request with the U.S. Navy and the Defense Department for an investigation into the awards granted to Sen. John Kerry during his service with the U.S. Navy in Vietnam. Judicial Watch also requested that military authorities investigate Kerryís anti-war activities, including his meeting with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations in Paris, while a member of the Naval Reserve….
========
Do you know how John Kerry got a piece of shrapnel buried in his leg?
You don’t?
That is all right. Neither does John.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
Where are the medical records for the shrapnel still in John Kerry’s leg?
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
Joe,
Thanks for the response.
You are right that Kobeís cheating on his wife is putting him in a very negative light.
Interesting that women are more skeptical of the accuser, isn’t it? It squares entirely with my own observations, not relating to courtroom at all.