Wheels of Justice Turn Slowly in Bryant Case

Both sides in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case are on record saying they’d like to move court proceedings along as quickly as possible, but on Monday, the first of three days of hearings in County Court here this week, two things became clear:

* The hearing on how Colorado’s rape-shield law will pertain to the case, having already gone four full days, is continuing with no end in sight to a steady parade of witnesses.

* Quibbling over evidence and terminology, plus the prospect of additional pretrial hearings, has dimmed hope that a trial date will be set anytime soon.

“I’m sure the judge is frustrated that both sides say they want a fast trial, but both sides keep filing time-consuming motions,” said David Lugert, a former Eagle County prosecutor.

Nine witnesses testified behind closed doors Monday in the continuation of a hearing that will determine whether evidence pertaining to the woman’s sexual activity -- the 72-hour window surrounding the alleged attack is of prime interest to the defense -- will be allowed at trial. That hearing will resume today.

After the defense has concluded, prosecutors have indicated they will call at least one witness -- Jean McAllister, executive director of the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. A leading expert on victims’ rights, McAllister is a member of the committee appointed by the state Board of Regents to investigate football recruiting practices and alleged sexual misconduct at the University of Colorado.

Still to go is the continuation of a hearing about whether Bryant’s first statements to investigators can be used as evidence at trial, a determination of what evidence prosecutors must share with the defense, and an argument over the use of the term “victim” to describe the 19-year-old woman who accused Bryant of raping her June 30 at a mountain resort.

Among the witnesses Monday was Johnray Strickland, a former boyfriend of the accuser who spoke publicly in October about her mental health.

Four other young male witnesses testified as well -- at least two of them classmates of Strickland and Bryant’s accuser at the University of Northern Colorado during the 2002-03 school year. Also testifying were a young woman, two psychological experts and Doug Winters, a detective with the Eagle County Sheriff’s Department.

Dist. Atty. Mark Hurlbert also took an aggressive stance. One witness said that during his testimony, the prosecutor raised constant objections to defense questions. And Hurlbert filed a testy response to a defense motion asking prosecutors to hand over 12 pieces of evidence.

One item on the list is a request for notes, correspondence and diaries of the alleged victim. Hurlbert wrote, “It is difficult to imagine a world in which a victim’s private notations not in the custody of law enforcement” would be made available to the defense.

He accused Bryant attorneys Hal Haddon and Pamela Mackey of possibly violating federal privacy law by obtaining information about the woman’s stay at an expensive Arizona drug and alcohol rehabilitation center.

The attorneys had requested that Hurlbert reveal the amount of money the woman received from the Crime Victim Compensation Board of the 5th Judicial District.

The three-person board is appointed by the district attorney, but Hurlbert said that he does “not know to whom the payments were made” and added that the state legislature has determined that such information is to remain confidential.

Hurlbert also refused to provide information his staff might have gathered about Bryant’s contacts with other women.

Legal analysts said the squabble over evidence in the possession of prosecutors -- “discovery” is the legal term -- will be one more issue Judge Terry Ruckriegle must address in court before a trial can be set.

“Prosecutors are supposed to show all their cards and let the judge decide what is relevant,” said Craig Silverman, former chief deputy district attorney of Denver. “But if you take discovery to its illogical extreme, prosecutors couldn’t even talk to their witnesses without telling the defense every word.

“Discovery can be a minefield for prosecutors and Hurlbert is wise to put it in the hands of Judge Ruckriegle.”

The stakes are high if a prosecutor withholds evidence he shouldn’t. Haddon alluded to that last week when he warned Hurlbert, “If those responses are ever shown to be incorrect or misleading, the defense will seek dismissal and/or other sanctions available by law.”

Another issue that seems to be revisited every several weeks is whether the use of the term “victim” is proper in referring to the complaining witness. Bryant admits he had sex with the woman, but says it was consensual. His attorneys assert that if a jury finds his version to be truthful and he is acquitted, there is no “victim.”

Legal experts expect that Bryant’s attorneys would then propose that if the woman is not a “victim” under the law, she is not entitled to relief under the Victim’s Rights Act, including money for therapy from the compensation fund.

Sending a victim out of state for drug and alcohol treatment is highly unusual, experts said. Haddon said a month’s stay at the Arizona facility where the woman was treated costs about $35,000.

“If every person accusing someone of a crime could request and receive that kind of treatment, the compensation fund would quickly go bankrupt,” Silverman said.

Judge Ruckriegle was sufficiently persuaded by Haddon’s concern over the use of “victim” that he set a briefing schedule. The defense must file its argument within seven days, the prosecution has five days to respond, and the defense has three more days to get in the last word.