Bryant Judge Questions Prosecution Evidence Claims

The judge in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case said at a pretrial hearing Thursday that he was skeptical of claims by the prosecution that DNA evidence was contaminated by defense experts.

Judge Terry Ruckriegle said he did not want to delay the trial to address the issue. He also asked prosecutors why they waited until the eve of jury selection to request a hearing to challenge defense DNA expert Elizabeth Johnson.

In a separate matter, Ruckriegle reaffirmed a ruling that the accuser’s full name be used during trial. Prosecutors had asked that the woman be referred to only by her first name during opening arguments.

“This is a solemn proceeding and casual references are not reflective of that,” Ruckriegle said.

Bryant, 26, has pleaded not guilty to felony sexual assault. He has said he had consensual sex with his accuser, 20, at a mountain resort last summer.

On Tuesday, Deputy Dist. Atty. Dana Easter filed the request for a hearing on Johnson, who has testified that DNA evidence suggests the accuser had sex with another man after her encounter with Bryant and before her hospital examination the next day.

Defense attorney Hal Haddon said prosecutors had enough information to raise objections several weeks ago.

Despite expressing exasperation with the “untimely nature” of the request, Ruckriegle gave prosecutors until next Tuesday to explain in writing their concerns about Johnson and the DNA evidence. The defense has until Sept. 3 to respond.

Though jury selection in the case is set to begin today, testimony in the case isn’t expected to take place before Sept. 7.

Legal experts said prosecutors could use the hearing to question Johnson’s credentials and her testing of evidence in the Bryant case.

Prosecutors have been in contact with a Texas man who says Johnson tampered with DNA evidence during a murder trial several years ago. Johnson has denied wrongdoing in that case, and no court has found fault with her work.

“Although the Texas case is interesting, I doubt that mention of it would be deemed relevant at trial,” said Craig Silverman, a former Denver prosecutor. “No judge would want to let that kind of sideshow take over the circus.”

Besides asking for a hearing, Easter claimed that test results from two laboratories used by the defense indicated control samples intended to ensure accurate testing were contaminated. Easter requested so-called “correction logs” that could indicate whether other contamination occurred in Johnson’s testing, which continued through last week.

Sperm and semen from a man other than Bryant were found on swabs taken from the accuser and on the underwear she wore during the alleged rape and another pair she wore at the exam.

Haddon acknowledged there was “some contamination in one out of numerous tests” but said it was irrelevant.

Easter also said the defense has withheld a laboratory document that has data copied over and whited out. Haddon said the redacted information does not pertain to the Bryant case. Ruckriegle told the defense to turn over to the prosecution the document in unredacted form.

The prosecution wants several employees of the two labs -- Technical Associates in Ventura and Lafayette, La. -- to testify in person about the testing procedures. Ruckriegle did not immediately rule on the request.

Easter mentioned the tampering issue at a hearing Aug. 16, and Eagle County Dist. Atty. Mark Hurlbert alluded to it in April when he objected to physical evidence being delivered to Technical Associates for testing.

Following the open session, a closed hearing was held to discuss the roughly 100-item questionnaire prospective jurors are to fill out today. Bryant was not required to be in court.

Times staff writer Lance Pugmire contributed to this report.