Bryant Accuser’s Reported Ready to Testify at Trial

Multi-colored scribble clutters most of the white chalkboard calendar in the local sheriff’s office. But only two words cover the last few days of August and the entire month of September.

Bryant Trial

Eagle County cops aren’t the only ones clearing their plates for the culmination of the sexual assault case against Kobe Bryant. Lawyers have spent 14 months battling over evidence. Nearly 1,000 county residents have been asked to report Friday for jury duty.

And after weeks of indecisiveness by Bryant’s accuser, there now are strong indications that she is prepared to testify, which is essential to the prosecution.

“If she is strong and points across the courtroom and says, ‘That man raped me,’ that is very powerful,” said Norm Early, a longtime Denver prosecutor who has attended most of Bryant’s pretrial hearings.

Although there were signals that the 20-year-old woman was wavering -- her personal attorneys said in national television interviews earlier this month that she had lost confidence in the criminal justice system -- the prosecution has steadfastly said that it was preparing for trial.

However, reports that prosecutors are trying to persuade the woman to cooperate are erroneous, said Krista Flannigan, a spokeswoman for the Eagle County District Attorney’s Office. Any type of persuasion “would be wholly inappropriate,” Flannigan said.

Meanwhile, the woman’s attorneys have laid out a strategy for her to maximize a monetary civil settlement, a strategy that legal analysts said could include her not testifying.

It takes two sides to strike a bargain, though, and the defense is said to be digging in for a fight. Bryant is unwilling to negotiate a monetary civil settlement, a source close to him said, even if an agreement would lead to the criminal charge being dropped.

“He is not giving her 5 cents,” said the source, who requested anonymity. “Think about what we know about him. He’s a competitor.”

A hard-line stance by the Laker star could have convinced the woman and her attorneys to continue to cooperate with prosecutors. Several sources said she has overcome her reservations and is ready to proceed.

“She is firm in her resolve to testify,” said David Lugert, an Eagle attorney who shares an office with one of the woman’s attorneys, John Clune.

For several weeks the woman’s attorneys sent signals to the contrary, publicly complaining that the mistaken release of transcripts from a closed session and other court errors had tainted the jury pool and destroyed the criminal case.

The previously sealed evidence recounts why Bryant’s attorneys believe that the woman had sex with someone else in the hours after the alleged rape and before her medical examination the next day. Also, evidence that no DNA from the other man was found on Bryant at his exam was erroneously posted for a short time on a court-sanctioned website.

All the information will be admissible at trial, but the episodes prompted Clune to say that the woman’s family “has no confidence that anything done through the courts won’t end in disaster.”

Clune and libel attorney Lin Wood, a recent addition to the woman’s legal team, said on national television that their client “obviously has got to rethink what she’s going to do” and that she would “get a more level playing field” in civil court.

On Aug. 10, she filed a federal civil suit in Denver.

The next day, her father wrote a letter to Terry Ruckriegle, the judge presiding over the criminal case, that said, “My family and I have lost trust that we can obtain a fair trial in your court.”

Ruckriegle issued a sweeping gag order, but the civil filing enabled the woman’s attorneys to continue their war of words. The suit recounted, in graphic detail, the woman’s version of the alleged rape at a mountain resort on June 30, 2003.

Bryant, who turns 26 today, says he and the woman had consensual sex. He faces four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation if convicted.

The woman’s attorneys also made an allegation prosecutors had steered clear of, stating that Bryant “has a history of attempting to commit similar acts of violent sexual assault on females he has just met and has thereby established a pattern and practice of such unlawful acts.”

Filing a civil suit before a criminal trial is unusual, experts said, because the defense can suggest to the jury that the accuser is motivated by financial gain. However, the woman possesses greater leverage for a civil settlement before the criminal trial.

“The civil suit is a platform to begin settlement discussions ethically,” said Larry Pozner, a Denver attorney and former president of the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“It has to be choreographed very carefully because a settlement cannot be dependant on agreeing not to testify.”

In a case where a dollar figure is agreed upon and an accuser then refuses to testify, prosecutors would be left with little choice but to dismiss the charge. An accuser could be subpoenaed and forced to testify, but that is almost unheard of in a sexual assault case.

Both sides have motivation to reach an agreement before the criminal trial. The defendant no longer would face a charge that could lead to life in prison, the accuser would be compensated monetarily, and everyone would avoid the airing of embarrassing evidence.

Because Bryant does not appear interested in such a compromise, however, the strategy of the woman’s attorneys could backfire on the accuser.

“The D.A. knows the judge is not going to be happy” with the comments by Wood and Clune, said Karen Steinhauser, a Denver law professor. The civil suit, she said, is a clear signal that the relationship between prosecutors and the accuser “has gone awry. Something has happened between the prosecutors and that family.”

Lugert, a longtime associate of Clune, holds another view, saying that the civil suit “is a strategic move to stem the tide of negative publicity ....

“I know John’s thought processes. Everything is thought out.”

The uncertainty over the accuser’s willingness to testify preceded the prosecution gaining momentum.

Ruckriegle determined Aug. 13 that the woman’s multiple suicide attempts, mental health problems, use of prescription drugs, and abuse of drugs and alcohol are not admissible. The ruling might have fortified her willingness to testify.

“If the prosecution doesn’t have a victim 100% committed to this case,” Steinhauser said, “there is no way they can win.”

Times staff writer Lance Pugmire contributed to this story.