Kobe Bryant Case

QRQ 30 · 08-06-2004, 08:48

Apparently the plaintiffs attorneys are recommending that charges be dropped. They plan to pursue a civil case. This indicates to me that it is all about money and not justice. IMO if charges are dropped or if the plaintif refuses to testify, the first step should be to send a bill for the millions of dollars wasted on fruitless investigations and prosecution.

The attorney is probably relying on a pretty hefty settlement without going to trial. I hope Bryant fights.

Radar Rider · 08-06-2004, 23:39

It's all about the money. I've sorta been following this case; mostly what hits the headlines. When I heard about not pursuing criminal charges and going with a civil suit, my doubts about the "victim's" case and integrity were really strengthened. I no longer think that Kobe is guilty of anything but bad judgement.

**Airbornelawyer** · 08-09-2004, 09:44

Your cynicism gets ahead of you. It may very well be about the money, but that is not proven by this.

The judge's decision to allow aspects of the accuser's (not plaintiff - civil trials have plaintiffs) past sexual history in the criminal case has probably led them to believe Bryant will win an acquittal. All you need is one juror to say somebody else might have done it or she brought it on herself by being a skank. The lesson for future rapists who can afford good lawyers is you get a free pass with any woman you can portray as a slut.

The reason for this is that in criminal trials there is a high burden of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - and jury verdicts must usually be unanimous*. Civil trials, which do not seek to take away one's life or liberty, do not have to meet the same standards. There, the standard is usually something like "the preponderance of the evidence." This standard is often expressed as "more likely that not" or "ore probably true than not true."

The criminal trial of The State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson and the civil trial of Fredric Goldman, Sharon Rufo and Louis Brown, et al. v. Orenthal James Simpson, et al. are examples where a defendant was found not guilty in a criminal trial but guilty in a civil trial. In the first, the state failed to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (actually they did, but the jury nullified). In the second, the plaintiffs were able to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the glove did fit.

RL probably has more knowledge in this area, since he's a litigator, but my impression is that this is unusual. An acquittal in a criminal trial makes it much harder to win in a civil trial, even when everyone "knows" the defendant is guilty. Perhaps the accuser's lawyers are worried that the State has so fouled up the prosecution of its case that no justice can be reached in criminal court.

If you think Kobe is innocent, that is your right, but this development is far from probative of that.
_____________________________________
* Two states, Oregon and Louisiana, and the UK allow 10-2 jury verdicts in felony criminal trials; Oregon allows 5-1 verdicts in misdemeanor trials. Thirty states allow non-unanimous verdicts in civil trials.

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 08-09-2004, 09:59

I think it is all about the money from every aspect. The plaintiff wants the money, the lawyers want the money, Kobe gets a tax write off for court costs, and money contributed to the problem to begin with. Give me a break, just what redeeming graces do most professional athletes bring to this country with the salaries that they are paid. The lad makes more money than folks that actually work for a living and contribute something to society. If Kobe was just another kid who allowed his bad judgement to get him in trouble just how much "justice" do you think he could buy.

Jack Moroney

**The Reaper** · 08-09-2004, 10:23

I only know what I have read/seen, but I think they are all wrong.

You have a priviliged character violating his marriage vows with an available young woman, just because he can, and then trying to buy his way out of it with a "Dream Team" of lawyers.

You have a young woman of questionable moral character and judgement who placed herself in a risky situation and allegedly changed her mind once engaged in sexual activity, now appearing to want to profit from it financially.

Frankly, I find the whole thing disgusting, like a bad porno movie plot. Can we just send them all to jail?

TR

shootandloot · 08-26-2004, 10:16

Of course I don't know whether he did it or not, but the first thing I thought when I heard about it was: Young woman has sexual relations with rich and famous basketball star. Young woman wants relationship, rich and famous basketball star wants one-night stand. Young woman is jealous and screams rape. Don't know if that's how it played out, but that's just what I thought. Who knows?

Jgood · 09-01-2004, 22:16

Case dropped now lets see if she gets him in Civil court

**Roguish Lawyer** · 09-01-2004, 23:06

I am re-opening this POLL!!!

QRQ 30 · 09-02-2004, 06:27

When she gets her settlement the State should sue her to pay for the probable millions of taxpayer's money she wasted.

**The Reaper** · 09-02-2004, 08:01

Quote:

Originally posted by QRQ 30
When she gets her settlement the State should sue her to pay for the probable millions of taxpayer's money she wasted.

$250,000 is the DA's bill so far.

TR

Gypsy · 09-02-2004, 11:21

It's the money, she's still pursuing a civil case. IMHO If it was about justice...I would think she would have gone all the way with the prosecution, money be damned.

**Airbornelawyer** · 09-02-2004, 12:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Gypsy
It's the money, she's still pursuing a civil case. IMHO If it was about justice...I would think she would have gone all the way with the prosecution, money be damned.

She does not get to make that call.

Prosecutors do not work for the victim; they represent the People.

**Roguish Lawyer** · 09-02-2004, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
She does not get to make that call. Prosecutors do not work for the victim; they represent the People.

True, but if she won't testify, they have no case.

**Airbornelawyer** · 09-02-2004, 13:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
True, but if she won't testify, they have no case.

If the prosecution and the court had not (a) inadvertently released closed-door hearing transcripts, (b) mistakenly released a sealed order that included the name of the accuser, (c) mistakenly sent to the news media a 206-page transcript dealing with the accuser's past sexual history, and (d) forgotten to redact the accuser's name from publicly released documents, then maybe they wouldn't have shot their own case in the foot. If they hadn't lost motions which would permit the defendant to rely on the "she's a slut so she had it coming" defense, then maybe they would have had a stronger case. The physical evidence testimony was slated to be turned into an OJ-esque circus of duelling criminalists, each arguing over the head of the jurors. So that made the prosecution more reliant on her direct testimony, and the defense more reliant on impeaching her credibility by making her out to be a whore. Judging by the comments here, they seem to have already had some success poisoning the public mood.

In the end, we now learn that guilt or innocence is not about evidence. And we are back to what I said before: The lesson for future rapists who can afford good lawyers is you get a free pass with any woman you can portray as a slut. I hope all your mothers, sisters, daughters and neices are pure-as-the-driven-snow virginal princesses, so that if they get raped, they don't have to worry about being victimized again in the witness box.

DanUCSB · 09-02-2004, 13:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Gypsy
It's the money, she's still pursuing a civil case.

I disagree. Yeah, a lot of people have been commenting that since there's still a civil case, it must just be about some girl trying to bilk a superstar, but that's not necesarily true. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Rape is a notoriously difficult charge to convict on, especially against someone with the wealth and popularity of Kobe Bryant. I can very easily see a situation where someone is genuinely raped, is afraid they won't get a conviction because of various outside factors, and seeks a civil case (where the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt) to at least get some measure of justice out of our screwed-up system.

If I was a rape victim, and didn't think I could get the guy convicted, you're damn right I'd be smacking on a civil suit.