Bryant Lawyers Subpoena Bellhop, Argue Shield Law

Kobe Bryant’s attorneys have been busy, issuing a subpoena requiring a crucial witness -- the hotel bellhop -- to testify at a pretrial hearing and continuing to challenge the legality of the Colorado rape-shield statute in a court filing Tuesday.

Bobby Pietrack, a senior basketball player at Fort Lewis College in Durango, is expected to testify in a closed hearing March 1 to determine whether Bryant should gain access to the medical and psychological records of the woman accusing him of a June 30 rape at a mountain resort.

Eight other witnesses testified in closed court Feb. 1, but Judge Terry Ruckriegle said one additional witness had to be called before he could rule.

Pietrack is considered the “outcry witness” -- making his testimony especially important -- because he was the first person the 19-year-old woman spoke to after leaving Bryant’s room at the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera about midnight.

“He just now found out” about the subpoena, said a source in Durango. “It surprised him, because he’s been below the radar for a while.”

On another issue, Bryant attorney Hal Haddon argued defendants in sexual assault cases are deprived of equal protection under the law because the rape-shield statute sets a “blatant and fundamentally unfair double standard.”

Under Colorado law, a defendant’s sexual history is more easily considered relevant than that of an accuser.

Haddon asked Ruckriegle to declare that law unconstitutional, writing that it “is flawed at its core because it ignores the most fundamental precept of our criminal justice system -- that a citizen accused of committing a crime is presumed innocent.”

“The fact that one law favors a preferred group -- sexual assault accusers -- while one prejudices a disfavored group -- sexual assault defendants -- is not a legitimate distinction for the government to make.”

In an earlier filing, prosecutors said the rape-shield law is important because it prohibits defense attorneys from digging into a woman’s sexual history and “putting her on trial instead of the defendant.”

Bryant’s chances of having the law stricken are slim, experts say, and could hinge on Haddon’s contention that the prosecution, not the defense, must prove to the judge that the law is constitutional.

“It is a longshot, and [the defense] knows it because they are smart lawyers,” said Karen Steinhauser, a University of Denver law professor. “Our rape-shield law has been around a long time and it mirrors the federal law.”

Haddon wrote that the prosecution has not indicated that it possesses any evidence of Bryant’s other sexual conduct that would be relevant.

“The only other sexual conduct at issue is that of the accuser,” he said.

A hearing on the rape-shield statute could take place as soon as March 2. If Ruckriegle declares it unconstitutional, the prosecution probably will appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, delaying a trial indefinitely.

However, if the judge says the law is constitutional, the case will move forward and the defense could appeal only if Bryant were found guilty.