Bryant Case Still Moving Slowly

Kobe Bryant was in court for the first time since the end of the Laker season Monday, listening attentively while his attorneys and prosecutors argued over how his consent defense against a felony sexual assault charge should be explained to the jury.

The defense contended that jurors should be told by Judge Terry Ruckriegle that if they determine the woman consented to sex, Bryant must be acquitted.

The prosecution cited case law that suggests Bryant must be found guilty if it is proven that the sex was against the woman’s will, even if she never communicated to him that she was not consenting.

Matthew Holman, an assistant Colorado attorney general, made the argument for the prosecution, joining the long-standing team of Dist. Atty. Mark Hurlbert and deputies Dana Easter, Ingrid Bakke and Gregg Crittenden.

Legal experts said recent changes in Colorado law have muddled the definition of consent. Ruckriegle, however, said he is wary of making jury instructions too technical, even on a topic so crucial to the case.

“We are now approaching a level of confusion and over-defining the issue,” he said.

The judge did not make an immediate determination, adding another complex issue to a lengthy list of pending matters that he must rule on before trial.

Although both sides reiterated that they can be ready for trial by the end of August, legal experts expect the judge to set a trial date only after he has made decisions on the two most prominent issues -- whether evidence of the alleged victim’s sexual history is an exception to the rape shield law and whether statements Bryant made to investigators should be suppressed because he was not read his Miranda rights.

Bryant, 25, is accused of raping the woman -- who turned 20 last week -- at an Edwards, Colo., hotel the evening of June 30. He has pleaded not guilty, saying they had consensual sex. He faces four years to life in prison or 20 years to life on probation if convicted.

Other unresolved issues include whether the woman’s former boyfriend must submit a DNA sample, whether text messages from the former boyfriend are admissible and whether the jury will learn about the woman’s suicide attempts and drug and alcohol treatment.

After more than four hours of arguments Monday covering seven issues, Ruckriegle closed the courtroom to the public in the afternoon to address motions pertaining to the rape shield law and the testimony of expert witnesses. The closed proceedings will continue today.

Prosecutors lobbied for an August trial, but Ruckriegle took exception to their methods.

Easter said that the prosecution was withdrawing its request to retest the DNA on four swabs taken at the alleged victim’s rape examination because the procedure would be too time-consuming. However, she said that if the judge did not set a “late-summer trial date,” the prosecution might reconsider and retest the evidence.

“I don’t enter into negotiations,” Ruckriegle said. “My position in setting trial is when counsel can assure me it is ready, not by words but by deeds.”

Moments later, Easter backed off, saying, “We are not trying to blackmail the court.”

Ruckriegle ordered that the prosecution not retest the DNA evidence regardless of when the trial begins. The DNA is of four vaginal swabs and is considered crucial by legal experts because independent tests conducted by the defense show they contain semen and sperm from someone other than Bryant.

“The DNA results, the way they stand now, are harmful to the prosecution,” legal analyst Craig Silverman said.

Prosecutors won a battle when Ruckriegle said the jury would not be told that the crime scene investigation, according to the defense, was inadequate and that evidence that could have exonerated Bryant was destroyed.

The defense can still raise questions about the crime scene investigation at trial during its cross-examination of Eagle County detectives Doug Winters and Dan Loya.

“Asking the judge to instruct the jury that the investigation was biased was a long shot, but losing the motion doesn’t mean the jury won’t hear about the issue,” legal expert Scott Robinson said.

The first item addressed in open court involved questionnaires that will be sent to prospective jurors. Ruckriegle must determine whether to include a defense request for three questions about interracial dating.

Easter said the questions are not appropriate.

“The defense would like to find out about societal views regarding race, interracial relationships and dating,” she said. “This was not a relationship. This was not a date.”

The defense and prosecution agreed that a 17-question preliminary questionnaire be mailed along with jury summons. Prospective jurors would then be asked to complete another questionnaire of more than 100 questions before reporting to the court.