News StoryKobe's Accuser May Discuss Dropping Case
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
DENVER -- The woman who accused Kobe Bryant (search) of rape will have to discuss with prosecutors whether she will go ahead with the criminal case because she fears the release of court documents about her sex life threatens her chance of getting a fair hearing, one of her lawyers said Wednesday.
John Clune said his 20-year-old client will have to talk to prosecutors soon about that and will also consider whether to file a civil suit against the NBA star.
Asked if his client is considering dropping out of the criminal case, Clune told The Associated Press: "That's something she and prosecutors will have to discuss in the immediate future. The DA's office will have to make that decision on what they want to do."
The woman's other lawyer, L. Lin Wood (search), said decisions on how to proceed should be made in a matter of days. Bryant is scheduled to go on trial Aug. 27 in Eagle, Colo.
"This young woman is not going away. Whether it proceeds criminally or civilly or both, justice is going to be had for this young woman," Clune said.
Prosecutors have been in constant contact with the accuser and her lawyers throughout the case and were told the woman would still participate even after the release of the transcripts, district attorney's spokeswoman Krista Flannigan said Wednesday.
"Nothing has changed with our plans of going forward with the prosecution of this case," she said.
Under pressure from the U.S. Supreme Court (search), District Judge Terry Ruckriegle on Monday released some 200 pages of transcripts from a closed-door hearing in June. The transcripts had been mistakenly e-mailed to The Associated Press and six other media organizations, who fought for the right to publish their contents.
Click to read the judge's ruling.
The documents include testimony from a DNA expert for the defense, Elizabeth Johnson, who says she is convinced the accuser had sex with someone after Bryant and before she contacted authorities -- a claim that Clune has vehemently denied.
Johnson based her conclusion on the discovery of another man's sperm on the woman when she underwent a rape exam at a hospital.
There was no testimony in the documents from a prosecution expert on the issue. Clune and prosecutors say the transcripts are one-sided and that a gag order in the case prevents them from presenting their explanation of the damaging evidence before the trial.
Prosecutors have suggested the woman put on underwear that hadn't been washed before going to the hospital, transferring semen from a man identified only as "Mr. X" to her body.
The judge has said the defense can present evidence about the woman's sexual activities in the three days before the July 1, 2003, hospital exam, saying it is relevant to help determine the cause of her injuries, the source of DNA evidence and her credibility.
Clune has kept a low profile during the case but on Wednesday he and Wood appeared on ABC to express their frustration with court mistakes which breached the woman's privacy.
"The amount of damage that has been caused by the court's error is so harmful not only to this case but to this young woman that it would be irresponsible for us not to speak at this time," Clune told the AP.
In September, the woman's name was included in a filing on a state courts Web site that was quickly removed. Last fall, the hospital where she and Bryant were examined accidentally turned over her medical records to attorneys in the case.
That was followed by the e-mail mistake in June and a gaffe last week in which a sealed order by Ruckriegle was mistakenly posted on the Web site, divulging her name again and information about DNA evidence collected during Bryant's hospital exam.
Bryant, 25, has pleaded not guilty to felony sexual assault, saying he had consensual sex with the woman at a Vail-area resort last summer. If convicted, he faces four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation, and a fine up to $750,000.
Now, let's examine her motives for wanting to drop the case shall we?Is she too burnt out to continue? I highly doubt it as she is still looking for a civil settlement. And the difference between the two types of trials? "Reasonable doubt" versus 51% belief of her word and the evidence.
She's gotten "hurt" by having her name being released? Gee Kate Farber, compared to what Kobe has gone through as an accused rapist, you've had a pretty easy time.
"Rape carries a stigma and people will judge her" cry the feminists.Anyone see ANY major news outlets saying ANYTHING remotely like an attack on this woman? In comparison, Kobe's gotten quite a bit of negative press.
Let's be very clear here. ANY harassment of Kate Farber is wrong. I mean that seriously. Why? Simple:
1) It's wrong. PERIOD. She has alleged rape, to being the victim of a serious crime and the harassment of her will make other REAL rape victims not come forward. Much as I think Kate Farber has lied, one has nothing to do with the other. She has every right to being secure in her home (including threatening phone calls) as you or me.
2) It does men's groups NO GOOD to have this woman be a martyr. And if she drops this case because she says she was harassed, and she has been, whether or not it's true as to WHY she's dropping it, then Kobe's name will never be cleared, the feminists will claim victory regardless, and it gives Kate an "out".
The prosecution knows its' case has gone to hell.
They'll lose. Look folks I'm not a "Legal Eagle", not an expert, and I can't prognosticate. But when the prosecution is even
HINTING that they may drop the case, that there are problems, or talking about "she may still file a civil case" that's "lawyer talk" for "
we're screwed". Sure, the prosecution would LOVE to take offer a "deal" to Kobe, but Kobe's team won't touch one with a 10 foot pole. Why? Because they don't have to. They'll win.
Sure, this is my opinion, but it's an informed opinion based on years of watching rape cases. Kate Farber's case mostly fell apart for many reasons:1) She showed up to her rape exam with another man's semen and had NO explanation. The one she makes NOW is lame as hell. What woman puts on cum stained underwear knowing full well she is headed to a rape exam? And IF that had happened, wouldn't she have told someone SOMETHING? Was she out of laundry? To better illustrate this, imagine the field day "victim's advocates" would be having if Kobe denied even having sex with this woman, and showed up with her fluid on HIS underwear. Or if her vaginal fluids were present and he had denied HAVING sex. It's not a perfect analogy at all, I know. But the point being if Kobe had this lame ass kind of story about a critical piece of forensic evidence he'd be hung upon it. Gender doesn't change that. In this case credibility and your story fitting the facts are crucial.
2) Her bragging about having sex with Kobe days later at a party is rather odd for someone who was "traumatized" by rape. She describes his penis size in glowing terms, is jovially telling her story, and now the rest of us are supposed to believe she was "suffering"?
3) She's already talking "Civil suit", she took $17,000 in "victim's compensation", and in general seems to be playing the "gold digger" role to the hilt. Am I being unfair? I don't think so. Remember the woman Mike Tyson raped? She never went after publicity, never asked for a dime, and her story never changed. Her I believed. Kate? I don't believe her.
Someone needs to be jailed in this case to send a message.
In my opinion it's Kate Farber. The twisted part is
it'll never happen, and Kate knows it. She has nothing to lose and a wheelbarrow of money to gain in this gamble. Kobe, though he is an adulterer, has already lost too much.
Rape shield laws are relics of a time when women got asked "
didn't you show up wearing black underwear? In the past when you wore black underwear did you have sex?" But those times are past. Any defense attorney who tried that these days would be crucified by the judge, humiliated by the press, and would hurt his client.
It's time we repealed "rape shield" or made it to include the accused. I favor abolishing it. Why? Because any "special laws" that deprive citizens of their due process are wrong. The original intent has been distorted to include cases where even a woman's history of making false allegations of rape are not allowed into evidence. I promise you that when the legislation got passed no one intended that.
And we need to jail false accusers. The tag line in too many stories I've read after a woman's word was found to be a lie has been: "the ADA is considering filing charges". The press knows it's a sham. MRAs know it's a sham. And I can guarantee you the accuser is told this too.
Someone got raped all right. His name was Kobe Bryant.
Steven