Bryant Case Has New Error

A mistake by court personnel Wednesday resulted in a judge’s order being posted online that contained the last name of Kobe Bryant’s accuser and previously undisclosed evidence -- the third time that sealed information from the case has been made public in error.

The slip-up occurred when a clerk accessed the wrong computer document and a “critical safeguard was omitted,” said court spokeswoman Karen Salaz. Last week, an attorney for the accuser asked Judge Terry Ruckriegle to stop posting documents from the sexual assault case on the court website, saying the earlier errors had harmed his client.

The order from Ruckriegle disclosed Wednesday includes a reference to DNA testing that legal experts said could benefit Bryant.

According to the order, medical swabs taken from the Laker star revealed the presence of his own DNA and that of the woman but contained nothing from an unidentified man whose semen was detected on swabs taken from the accuser.

The defense has contended that the accuser had sex with someone other than Bryant in the 15 hours between the alleged rape and her medical exam. Legal analysts said the absence of another man’s DNA on swabs taken from Bryant could bolster this contention.

“This evidence makes the defense theory that the alleged victim had sex after her encounter with Kobe Bryant more believable,” said Craig Silverman, a former Denver prosecutor.

Bryant attorneys have argued that the woman’s injuries could have resulted from having sex with multiple partners in a short period of time, which they contend could damage her credibility. Ruckriegle ruled last week that evidence from a three-day period ending with the woman’s medical exam is admissible at trial.

In the previous mistaken disclosures, the accuser’s name was included in a document posted on the court website Sept. 16 and transcripts from a closed hearing were e-mailed to seven news organizations June 24.

A U.S. Supreme Court justice asked Ruckriegle this week to publish an edited version of the transcripts, and the trial judge told the prosecution and defense they should prepare to discuss what they want edited at a hearing Friday in Eagle County, Colo., Court.

Ruckriegle also wants both sides to agree on whether the evidence from Bryant’s examination will be admissible at trial, which is scheduled to begin Aug. 27. The order that addressed the issue was supposed to be filed under seal but was posted online for about 45 minutes Wednesday before being taken down.

“These mistakes are enormous and it’s clear the process isn’t working,” said Karen Steinhauser, a University of Denver law professor. “You can’t repair the damage.”

Ruckriegle would not comment on the posting. Salaz issued a statement saying a mistake was made by a clerk.

“Today’s erroneous release of the alleged victim’s name stemmed from a new procedure adopted by the court which was intended to assist with research for the court’s opinions,” Salaz said. “Unfortunately, the clerk, when told that a document was ready for posting, selected the wrong document from the shared folder, and a critical safeguard was omitted that would have averted the release of this information.

“The court administrator intends to apologize to the alleged victim and her family and is considering what action may be appropriate for the staff.”

The mistake came nine days after attorney John Clune asked Ruckriegle to cease electronic postings of case documents. At a hearing July 19, he told the judge that his client has considered abandoning the case only when “the people sworn to protect her rights have failed. There is no safety in the court.”

In a statement Wednesday, Clune said, “It is inconceivable how this court can explain its continual pattern of re-victimizing this 20-year-old girl. This judge must learn that the trust a victim places in the judiciary is the foundation for the courage that all victims must have to endure the brutal nature of rape prosecutions.”

Rob Wheeler, another of the woman’s attorneys, would not comment on whether she again was wavering on cooperating with the prosecution.

Eagle County Sheriff Joe Hoy said he would determine whether an investigation into the mistakes was warranted. More than 500 documents from the case have been posted online, a procedure Ruckriegle said has eased the burden on the small clerk staff.

“This is another headache for a judge who must already have a migraine,” Silverman said. “I’ve rarely seen a judge under more pressure. He’s got the U.S. Supreme Court looking over his shoulder, telling him to release material that may jeopardize a fair trial, which is scheduled to start in less than a month.”

Silverman and other analysts said the alleged victim has little recourse.

“It’s a matter of negligence and governmental immunity precludes lawsuits against negligence,” Silverman said.

Most analysts give Ruckriegle high marks overall in his management of the high-profile case.

“I think he’s handled the pressure extremely well so far,” Steinhauser said. “If you look at the rulings he’s making, they aren’t done in haste.”

Ruckriegle’s order Wednesday was issued because he wants both sides to clarify whether evidence from Bryant’s medical examination will be used at trial. The judge ruled earlier that the exam was conducted illegally and that prosecutors could not use evidence from it against Bryant.

However, according to the judge’s order, the defense has indicated it wants to introduce the fact that DNA from the man whose sperm and semen were found on the accuser was not found on Bryant. Prosecutors originally had no objection to the defense using the information, but changed their mind, telling Ruckriegle that the only DNA evidence they planned to present was the blood found on Bryant’s T-shirt.

“The defense can introduce evidence from the medical exam, but if they do, prosecutors can do the same,” Steinhauser said. “Either it’s all in or it’s all out.”

Also to be addressed at the hearing Friday is a defense motion to keep prosecutors from playing a 75-minute audiotape of Bryant’s interview with detectives in its entirety.

Bryant, 25, has pleaded not guilty to felony sexual assault and has said he had consensual sex with the woman -- then 19 -- at a resort June 30, 2003. If convicted, Bryant faces four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation and a fine of up to $750,000.