Request to Seal Filings Rejected

Judge Terry Ruckriegle refused Tuesday to seal upcoming court filings pertaining to evidence in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, a ruling that could result in more information being made public before a Dec. 19 hearing.

Ruckriegle issued a mild rebuke in denying the prosecution’s request, saying that Dist. Atty. Mark Hurlbert “did not cite any legal authority when speculating that many evidentiary motions will contain sensitive material” that could be inadmissible at trial.

The judge opted for a plan proposed by media groups and Bryant’s defense team, allowing attorneys in the case to publicly file motions that leave out sensitive details about Bryant and his accuser, and to file those details separately under seal. However, he urged both sides to make sealed filings “sparingly and wisely.”

Bryant, a Laker guard, is accused of raping a 19-year-old woman June 30 at a Colorado mountain resort; he faces life in prison if convicted. He says he and the woman had consensual sex.

At least three sensitive topics will be addressed Dec. 19 in Eagle County court:

* Whether Bryant’s accuser waived the physician-patient privilege for medical examinations, consultation and treatment other than the examination made during the investigation of the rape charges.

The defense contends the woman discussed her treatment with others, and in recent days issued subpoenas to friends and acquaintances of the accuser and her mother, requesting that they testify at next week’s hearing or give depositions.

Prosecutors are seeking to quash a defense subpoena seeking records of consultations at Colorado hospitals in Greeley and Glenwood Springs, where the woman was taken after she overdosed on pills in February and May, according to authorities.

* Whether the accuser waived the psychologist-patient privilege in a conversation she had with a rape counselor during a police interview that the counselor attended, and whether the waiver would extend to a notation made by the counselor about the conversation in the woman’s record.

* Whether the defense should be investigated for allegedly disclosing to a retired Eagle County judge information concerning semen on the underwear the woman was wearing when she arrived for her sexual assault examination before that evidence was presented at the October preliminary hearing.

Also, the defense asked that it be allowed to arrange for independent DNA testing of clothing collected from Bryant and his accuser from the night of the encounter and the following day.

Although legal experts are split on whether next week’s hearing will be open, they agree that the primary reason Ruckriegle can cite to close it is that evidence presented would taint the jury pool.

“Historically in Colorado, motions hearings are always open,” said Dan Recht, a Denver criminal defense attorney. “I can’t remember once seeing one closed in 20-some years of criminal defense. But there has never been a case like this one, a case so closely scrutinized by the press and read about by the public.”

Bryant’s defense team did not object to Hurlbert’s attempt to have evidentiary filings sealed, leading some experts to say the defense does not want the case to leave Eagle County.

Ruckriegle indicated Tuesday that the public’s right to information supersedes concerns about potential jurors.

“While it is admirable to attempt to prevent potential tainting of the jury pool, giving counsel free rein to file any such motion under seal is potentially problematic in a case with the level of public interest that has been generated by the media,” he wrote.