Kobe Trial News

[John Galt]

I'm following the Kobe trial with more than a passing interest. The big news for today was that the defense can't use prior sexual history and psychological evidence in the trial.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/21/br...ase/index.html

I'm not sure what all of the evidence in question consists of, but I'm happy to see the rape shield laws being enforced in a high profile case.

[Young Drachma]

Do you think all the stuff happening with the parents becoming more vocal is turning the tide of support to her side?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Do you think all the stuff happening with the parents becoming more vocal is turning the tide of support to her side?

No. I think as in most every celebrity trial, people become split very early and reinforce their beliefs as things progress. And in the case of celebrity rape trials (which have been few), people usually inflict their biases about women crying rape (either way) and don't move away from their usual perspective.

And hopefully (for the sake of justice), the judge is enforcing the rape shield rules because that is the law and not because of any public reaction.

[The Afoci]

I think the rape shield law is good in most cases, but from the rumors and leaks, if she had rough sex with a guy only hours after having sex with Kobe, I think that should be heard.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

I think the rape shield law is good in most cases, but from the rumors and leaks, if she had rough sex with a guy only hours after having sex with Kobe, I think that should be heard.

Look, just because you taped your rough sex romp and want to sell a few more copies on the internet doesn't mean the judge is going to make a special exception for you.

Now, if you had kept those polaroids of you, him, and the water buffalo, you might have more leverege.

[sabotai]

The way I read it, and I hope I am reading it right, is that the judge saw the evidence by Bryants side that she had sex a few hours later and heard the prosecutions side and ruled that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that it was true, so he ruled that they couldn't make that arguement in court.

That's just speculation, but I hope it's right. If she really did have rough sex with some guy a few hours afterwards, and the evidence is solid but it doesn't get to be heard is just not justice.

[judicial clerk]

Kobe doesn't strike me as a guy who would do well in prison. This is in contrast to say, Mike Tyson. I am guessing Mike was able to take care of his business while behind bars.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

Kobe doesn't strike me as a guy who would do well in prison. This is in contrast to say, Mike Tyson. I am guessing Mike was able to take care of his business while behind bars.

Put it this way he will howl when he farts...

No Fritz

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Noop

Why cant people hear the truth? She got roughed up then decided she would sleep with Kobe... so instead of saying and accepting she is a bit of a nympho she wants to holler rape. She is going to destroy this man's life because she and he both made a mistake but she gets to live her life while Kobe is going to get served some hard time from behind from those skin heads.

And you know the "truth" from where?

[Noop]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

And you know the "truth" from where?

Care to rephrase?

[WSUCougar]

He's wondering what could possibly enable you to post what you did with such certainty.

[Axxon]

To clarify for John, this isn't about the rape shield law at all. It's actually far more important. It's about medical confidentiality.

The defense was claiming that she waived her rights to confidentiality by discussing her condition with her family and the investigating officer. The court denied this claim. It's a victory for all of us as that is a stupid reason to allow medical confidentiality to be lost.

As far as the rsl, if you read clearly, she was made to testify in camera regarding past sexual history. The judge hasn't ruled on whether this is admissable or not.

That was a poorly worded article by CNN and unless you follow the case closely you would definitely get the wrong idea of what happened today. Luckily, you could say I have been following it very closely.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Noop

Why cant people hear the truth? She got roughed up then decided she would sleep with Kobe... so instead of saying and accepting she is a bit of a nympho she wants to holler rape. She is going to destroy this man's life because she and he both made a mistake but she gets to live her life while Kobe is going to get served some hard time from behind from those skin heads.

And the award for sexist, caveman dumbass goes to . . .

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Axxon

To clarify for John, this isn't about the rape shield law at all. It's actually far more important. It's about medical confidentiality.

The defense was claiming that she waived her rights to confidentiality by discussing her condition with her family and the investigating officer. The court denied this claim. It's a victory for all of us as that is a stupid reason to allow medical confidentiality to be lost.

As far as the rsl, if you read clearly, she was made to testify in camera regarding past sexual history. The judge hasn't ruled on whether this is admissable or not.

That was a poorly worded article by CNN and unless you follow the case closely you would definitely get the wrong idea of what happened today. Luckily, you could say I have been following it very closely.

I stand corrected. I had been following closely, but I took the CNN article at face value and thought the decision was on past sexual history as well. You are right that I should have been clearer on the medical confidentiality point. Thanks for fixing my mess.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

I think the rape shield law is good in most cases, but from the rumors and leaks, if she had rough sex with a guy only hours after having sex with Kobe, I think that should be heard.

I wouldn't trust leaks from the defense in a rape case. Also, the leaks have had a lot of inconsitencies (when she supposedly had sex with someone else being the largest issue of ambiguity).

[SackAttack]

One of the things that bugs me in general about criminal cases is the idea of "permissible" evidence. I can understand throwing evidence out because of how it was obtained - illegal search and seizure, or forced confessions, for example - but throwing evidence out simply because it may be inflammatory in nature mystifies me.

And it does so on both sides. Not just situations like this, where the mentality appears to be "protect the alleged victim, even at the expense of the accused (who is supposed to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty)," but also in situations where there may be a damning piece of evidence against the defendant, and it gets thrown out or denied because it's "prejudicial."

I don't understand it.

[VPI97]

I predict greatness for this thread.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I stand corrected. I had been following closely, but I took the CNN article at face value and thought the decision was on past sexual history as well. You are right that I should have been clearer on the medical confidentiality point. Thanks for fixing my mess.

Not a problem at all.

Overall I think this judge has been doing a good job and the way he's handling the rape shield law shows an appreciation for the effect and reason for the law.

The law is to protect the alleged victim but has to allow the defense to prove relavence of evidence that it needs to present. This is done out of the public eye and if the judge rules it is relevant he allows it. If not, it's never presented in trial.

The prosecution didn't like that in this case so he appealed but the Colorado Supreme Court backed the judges interpretation of the law.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

One of the things that bugs me in general about criminal cases is the idea of "permissible" evidence. I can understand throwing evidence out because of how it was obtained - illegal search and seizure, or forced confessions, for example - but throwing evidence out simply because it may be inflammatory in nature mystifies me.

And it does so on both sides. Not just situations like this, where the mentality appears to be "protect the alleged victim, even at the expense of the accused (who is supposed to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty)," but also in situations where there may be a damning piece of evidence against the defendant, and it gets thrown out or denied because it's "prejudicial."

I don't understand it.

I think this is actually one of the most important principles in our justice system, if not the most important.

Except in limited circumstances (such as showing modus operandi), the fact that a defendant has committed past crimes has no relevance to whether he committed the crime of which he is currently accused. Allowing such evidence does nothing but create a prejudicial and "bad" image of the defendant and does not get to the merits of the particular case.

Similarly, the past history of a victim is also rarely relevant.

The idea is that we shouldn't be deciding cases based on reputation or one's past, but rather on the facts and evidence in the specific case. I think it is really the only way to come close to ensuring a fair trial for a defendant.

[MrBug708]

This was not a ruling that her medical and psychological history is irrelevant or inadmissible, which WOULD be important. It is a relatively unimportant discovery ruling. The key is contained in the last two paragraphs of the Yahoo story:

"Larry Pozner, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the defense still can seek testimony from people who have direct knowledge about the woman's purported suicide attempts and prescription drug use.

``The defense has a bathtub full of evidence on her suicide attempts that is not in the medical records -- it's just plain old-fashioned (eyewitness) testimony,'' Pozner said.
----------


Bingo.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

This was not a ruling that her medical and psychological history is irrelevant or inadmissible, which WOULD be important. It is a relatively unimportant discovery ruling. The key is contained in the last two paragraphs of the Yahoo story:

"Larry Pozner, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the defense still can seek testimony from people who have direct knowledge about the woman's purported suicide attempts and prescription drug use.

``The defense has a bathtub full of evidence on her suicide attempts that is not in the medical records -- it's just plain old-fashioned (eyewitness) testimony,'' Pozner said.
----------


Bingo.

That had kinda already been cleared up you know.

Actually I disagree that it was a relatively unimportant discovery hearing. If it had been ruled that you voided your rights to keep your medical records private simply by discussing them with family it would have widespread ramifications on everyone in the entire state of Colorado, not just rape victims.

[MrBug708]

Ya, I didnt bother reading the whole thread. I figured it would turn out as a "He's a rapist, Lakers sucks" thread

[oykib]

Rape shield laws are for the most part nonsense and aimed at the lowest common denominator. THe burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser. Rape shield laws shift an unfair burden on the defendant.

If I assault you and you lose one of your hands because of it, I'm pretty sure you'll face the same level of mental anguish that a rape victim faces. But you don't get any special protection in court. I understand special protection for mentally incompetent people. Most rape victims can still think clearly.

Basically, the rape shield laws are saying that we can't enter evidence about the woman's sexual history because the defense lawyers are too unscrupulous to stick to relevant issues, the judge is too foolish to disallow irrelevant and inflammatory testimony and evidence, and juries are still so judgemental of women that upon hearing that a woman had anal sex once or twice will assume that she'll drop her pants for anyone at anytime.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by oykib

Basically, the rape shield laws are saying that we can't enter evidence about the woman's sexual history because the defense lawyers are too unscrupulous to stick to relevant issues, the judge is too foolish to disallow irrelevant and inflammatory testimony and evidence, and juries are still so judgemental of women that upon hearing that a woman had anal sex once or twice will assume that she'll drop her pants for anyone at anytime.

And basically that was EXACTLY what happened time and time again so what's your point? They didn't just make that crap up, rapes were the hardest cases to convict and it's because the juries were made up of folks like Noop. A jury of your peers isn't exactly made up of people who think before they decide you know.

And since the judge can and does hear the evidence, it's not because he's too stupid to judge. It's the fact that the prevalent attitude seemed to be that women are stupid sluts who are always asking for it.

Can't blame the attorneys for bringing it up. Ethics aren't a part of it. They are payed to put on the best defense possible and if playing to the biases of the jury wins cases, they HAVE to do it.

[oykib]

They don't have special rules to protect dark-skinned peoples from rednecks. So many of them from being wrongfully imprisoned to this day. Many truly mentally incompetent people are also taken advantage of all the time. Rape shield laws are for the most part PC garbage that like most other PC garbage was put in with good intentions. But if the legal system operated the way it was supposed to, there would be no need for them.

My point is that I don't see the need of one special class of victims for which we distort our legal system in order to raise the conviction rate to what we think it should be rather than what our legal system actually produces.

[clintl]

The rule is not there to raise the conviction rate. It's there to encourage rape victims to come forward and report rapes without having to fear that their reputation will be trashed simply for having the courage to do so. Rape is not like any other crime in that respect, and the special laws protecting rape victims have a great deal of merit.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

He's wondering what could possibly enable you to post what you did with such certainty.

Yeap. Makes me glad he won't be likely be selected for a jury trial for a few years.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by oykib

They don't have special rules to protect dark-skinned peoples from rednecks. So many of them from being wrongfully imprisoned to this day. Many truly mentally incompetent people are also taken advantage of all the time. Rape shield laws are for the most part PC garbage that like most other PC garbage was put in with good intentions. But if the legal system operated the way it was supposed to, there would be no need for them.

My point is that I don't see the need of one special class of victims for which we distort our legal system in order to raise the conviction rate to what we think it should be rather than what our legal system actually produces.

They do have special rules to protect blacks from rednecks. They've been around for years. There were a number of Supreme Court cases regarding the make-up of juries. The Supreme Court abolished a number of systems (mainly in the South) where blacks were systematically excluded from sitting on a jury, either because of the pool the jury was drawn from or because attorneys just tossed them out based on race. Rules were put in place to see that this did not happen. So there are certainly are speical rules designed specicifically for this purpose, they happen before trial, not during it.

There is a need for rape shield laws. A huge need. I know of friends who have been raped and never did anything about it because they knew how difficult it would be to bring the charge and see it through. It's a horribly invasive process. Defense attorneys will always try to turn the victim into a tramp by whatever means necessary. It's a defense that works. Sad to say.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

Who is going to trash them because they got raped? Reputation please....... I don't see how this can harm them... so women who get raped will have people calling them sluts and whores? The fact is these laws as well as many others make having sex a non-contact sport. Hell in the future we might just have to mail them the semen so they can have babies because the word rape is very wide in definition.

Trust me, I think your "fact" is probably true if current conditions hold, but it's different issues dude. The facts of what have been can't be argued. They suck. Something had to be done. If the "fact" comes true then balancing in the other direction will be done. It's a sorry system but we are only human ( and boy does this suck ), we will err, now, which way should we err??

Think long before you answer and understand if you've had a loved one raped, your position might be a bit different.

[Tekneek]

The rumors and leaks might just as well have originated from the defense attorney's office. You shouldn't change the rule of law simply because of a rumor mill that can be fed by the defense. I leak out that she may have done this or that, and therefore I get to talk about in trial? I don't buy it.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Noop

I am glad you like judging people....

I like how you get in John's face about being judgemental, when you have clearly judged some 19 year old woman 2000 miles from you a complete whore despite not ever having met anyone who knows anything about the case. At least John has direct statements from you to base judgements on.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Noop

Why cant people hear the truth? She got roughed up then decided she would sleep with Kobe... so instead of saying and accepting she is a bit of a nympho she wants to holler rape. She is going to destroy this man's life because she and he both made a mistake but she gets to live her life while Kobe is going to get served some hard time from behind from those skin heads.

Your statement is not truth, it is your opinion based on your beliefs, not on the facts of the case. He had a wife and daughter and at least chose to cheat on his wife...no matter how much the alleged victim was turning him on and tempting him, he could've backed off and said, "Sorry, I'm married." He showed (in my opinion) very bad judgment here. Was it criminal? I don't know. My belief is it happened, because she probably had some idea (although maybe not to this degree) how horrible her life would become, yet she chose to come forward instead of seeking hush money or trying to profit from this (of course, this could still happen, but why is she keeping her name out of the press for example?)

As for your second statement "She gets to live her life while Kobe is going to get served some hard time from behind from those skin heads", if he raped her, then he gets everything he deserves, although it'll probably only be probation and he won't see the inside of a prison. But right now she has had to move 6 times in 4 months (or some crazy amount) and suffer death / mutilation threats while he's playing basketball for a playoff team as he has done the past 5 years at least, having only to suffer a few more boos than before...which one of these two is "living their life" right now?

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

They do have special rules to protect blacks from rednecks. They've been around for years. There were a number of Supreme Court cases regarding the make-up of juries. The Supreme Court abolished a number of systems (mainly in the South) where blacks were systematically excluded from sitting on a jury, either because of the pool the jury was drawn from or because attorneys just tossed them out based on race. Rules were put in place to see that this did not happen. So there are certainly are speical rules designed specicifically for this purpose, they happen before trial, not during it.

There is a need for rape shield laws. A huge need. I know of friends who have been raped and never did anything about it because they knew how difficult it would be to bring the charge and see it through. It's a horribly invasive process. Defense attorneys will always try to turn the victim into a tramp by whatever means necessary. It's a defense that works. Sad to say.

The Supreme Court abolished systems that were unconstitutional. That's not really equivalent to rape shield laws, which operate contrary to the normal functioning of our adversarial legal system. That's what judges are for-- to determine whether evidence is admissable or is just being put out to prejudice a jury.

Basically, my problem with rape shield laws is that they violate the principle that it is better that a hundred guilty men go free... which seems to permeate the rest of the legal system. It seems as though alleged rapists don't get put through the same process as other criminals. If you are an accused rapist you aren't entitled to the same level of vigorous defense as other accused.

[Tekneek]

It just means you have to have a better defense than simply putting the victim on trial.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It just means you have to have a better defense than simply putting the victim on trial.

No judge fit for a robe should allow the defense attorney to do that. But the main contention in most rape cases is whether the sex was consensual or not. Of course the past sexual history of the victim/accuser could be relevant. If half the rumors-- even a quarter-- in the Kobe trial are true, I cant see how they shouldn't be heard by the jury.

[Ben E Lou]

Back to one of the early points that I'm trying to understand...

OK, if we're trying the facts in this case and this case only, then it would seem that part of the prosecutorial evidence would be bruises, abrasions, etc. Wouldn't it then be fair for the defense to present an alternative scenario under which these bruises, abrasions, etc. could have been created? I'm not asking about the minutiae of the laws here, I'm asking about what is fair. If the jury is allowed to hear medical evidence stating, "she had these marks on her in these places at 11:30pm when she was examined," shouldn't the defense be allowed to present evidence that the marks came as a result of some activity other than forced sex with the accused???

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Back to one of the early points that I'm trying to understand...

OK, if we're trying the facts in this case and this case only, then it would seem that part of the prosecutorial evidence would be bruises, abrasions, etc. Wouldn't it then be fair for the defense to present an alternative scenario under which these bruises, abrasions, etc. could have been created? I'm not asking about the minutiae of the laws here, I'm asking about what is fair. If the jury is allowed to hear medical evidence stating, "she had these marks on her in these places at 11:30pm when she was examined," shouldn't the defense be allowed to present evidence that the marks came as a result of some activity other than forced sex with the accused???

Of course that evidence would be relevant and admissible. The two questions at issue here (and only 1 has been decided by the judge) are whether confidential medical records can be used to make that argument (the judge said no) and whether the evidence is directly relevant (as opposed to being character evidence inadmissible under the rape shield laws). If the defense had actual evidence that the bruises could have been caused by someone else (as opposed to a pure fishing expedition), that evidence would be admissible.

[clintl]

I don't see how the medical records the defense is asking for has anything to do with that.

(Edit - This was in response to Skydog's point, not John's.)

[Ben E Lou]

OK. I'm not following the case really, and don't know exactly what medical records are being requested, so please bear with me here. What if the medical records reveal that three other times she's been treating for injuries after rough, consensual sex?

I'm not speaking as one who claims to have a clue either way about the case, but just trying to figure out why--as I see it--someone can be limited from pursuing all avenues of defending oneself in this country.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

One of the things that bugs me in general about criminal cases is the idea of "permissible" evidence. I can understand throwing evidence out because of how it was obtained - illegal search and seizure, or forced confessions, for example - but throwing evidence out simply because it may be inflammatory in nature mystifies me.

And it does so on both sides. Not just situations like this, where the mentality appears to be "protect the alleged victim, even at the expense of the accused (who is supposed to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty)," but also in situations where there may be a damning piece of evidence against the defendant, and it gets thrown out or denied because it's "prejudicial."

I don't understand it.

Excuse me if I enter Chief-Rum-small-novel-mode.

I think this question (and oykib's objections) warrant a little background discussion and an analogy of some length.

Richard Posner, a 7th Circuit judge, an arch conservative/libertarian, and the most prolific legal scholar of our time wrote a book called "Sex and Reason" which outlined an interesting set of arguments (of the libertarian bent) on how sex issues should be legislated in America. His chapter on rape is one of the most interesting parts of the book. He makes a very helpful analogy and while feminists everywhere have rejected it for a variety of reasons, I think it helps to understand why rape shield laws exist.

Posner argues that a rapist is really a "sex thief." That is a rapist steals sex from a victim in the same way a robber steals money from a victim. Under the law, the 2 crimes should be treated identically. Consent is a defense in both cases ("she gave sex to me" v. "she gave money to me") and the elements of the crime are analogous.

So, if one looks at how rape and robbery are treated by the law, you would expect to find the same set of decisions and jury verdicts even without rape shield laws. Unfortunately, that is not the case. These are examples of how rape and robbery cases have been decided without rape shield (and other related) laws:

1) When an accused robber argues the victim gave them the money, they are usually laughed out of court. When an accused rapist argues the victim gave them sex, they usually win.

2) When an accused robber argues that the victim gave money to other people (charity) that doesn't prove they didn't rob the victim in that case. When an accused rapist argues that the victim gave sex away to other people, the jury is inclined to believe that she gave it away in this case.

3) When an accused robber argues that the victim just had the money hanging out of their pocket and was asking for it, the jury would find them guilty. When an accused rapist argues that the victim was dressed provacatively and flirting with the defendant, the jury is more likely to find for the defendant.

4) When an accused robber argues that the victim was in a bad part of town so they deserved what they got, they would lose. When an accused rapist argues that the victim was in a bad part of town so they deserved what they got, a jury is likely to hold that against the victim.

The historical fact has been that all sorts of evidence that would be deemed irrelevant in robberies has been deemed relevant in rapes. The reason for this difference is dominant attitudes about sex and women. People have been inclined historically to believe an "impure" woman was more inclined to "give it up" in the future. As a result, guilty verdicts in rape cases have always been hard to obtain for prosecutors.

I think the analogy of a sex thief is helpful for understanding that rape shield (and other related) laws just eliminate the evidence that in other analogous crimes would already be excluded.

And as one last argument, why does a woman's sexual history reflect on the current situation? I've always found it more persuasive that if a woman had sex with 100's of men and is only claiming "rape" in this one instance, isn't she more credible? How one answers that question usually demonstrates the underlying bias that rape shield laws are designed to eliminate.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

OK. I'm not following the case really, and don't know exactly what medical records are being requested, so please bear with me here. What if the medical records reveal that three other times she's been treating for injuries after rough, consensual sex?

I'm not speaking as one who claims to have a clue either way about the case, but just trying to figure out why--as I see it--someone can be limited from pursuing all avenues of defending oneself in this country.

See my long post above, but why do past injuries indicate anything about the present case. Would five broken bones in the last five years mean she wasn't assaulted by a thug in this case? Would giving money to five different charities in five years mean she gave the money to the accused robber? Why doesn't the fact that she had rough sex (and didn't claim rape) prove her credibility?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Noop

Sexist? Nope I just call a spade a spade... I am glad you like judging people... Oh and good job went the name callings... so who is the child me for not taking it to a personal with cheap attacks or you? I can stoop your level( no not like that I like women) and start reeling off remarks left and right. So again I would like to hear the entire case dont dismiss anything... cause if they do I tend to doubt so if they were to present it in full, I could say if its the truth or not in my opinion. Breath Easy...

Noop, I have almost never ever engaged in name-calling on this board, but your post (IMO) warranted it. You said the "truth" is that this woman was not raped and just made a "mistake." You said she is destroying Kobe's life by lying.

Your conclusions are based on 0% fact.

If you have no facts yet conclude the woman is at fault, then you are the very definition of a sexist.

And reasons to believe the woman is not lying:

She receives death threats every day and is fleeing for her life.
She has no ability to resume a normal life even after this situation is over.
Her life is on hold while all this is going on.

I have no idea if she is telling the truth, but I want to see this case tried fairly, with only relevant evidence. You, on the other hand, have made a decision based on sexism and stupidity.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by John Galt

See my long post above, but why do past injuries indicate anything about the present case. Would five broken bones in the last five years mean she wasn't assaulted by a thug in this case? Would giving money to five different charities in five years mean she gave the money to the accused robber? Why doesn't the fact that she had rough sex (and didn't claim rape) prove her credibility?

I agree that it doesn't prove anything. I should have said more. I'm saying that IF there is evidence in this case that she had rough sex that could have caused said injuries, is it then unfair to establish that this is a pattern of behavior?

To continue in the robbery analogy, if there was some evidence that a guy had gone into a rough neighborhood and handed out money (not given to charity) on the very same day that he claimed to have been robbed, would it not make sense to show that he'd gone into rough neighborhoods and given out money in the past?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

OK. I'm not following the case really, and don't know exactly what medical records are being requested, so please bear with me here. What if the medical records reveal that three other times she's been treating for injuries after rough, consensual sex?

I'm not speaking as one who claims to have a clue either way about the case, but just trying to figure out why--as I see it--someone can be limited from pursuing all avenues of defending oneself in this country.

I think what they are saying is the judge makes the descision about what is revelant. In the charge that she had sex with someone shortly after the incedent with Kobe, the judge is going to look at the evidence and if he doesn't feel it is conclusive that a) she had sex with someone, and b) that person could have caused the damage, then he will not allow that evidence in because it will cause prejudice.

On the medical records, everyone’s medical records are confidential. They were trying to end-round the law by saying because she talked to parents and friends about her medical treatments, they are no longer confidential. That what set a horrible precedent that would in affect end confidentiality (who doesn’t talk to a friend or family member about medical decisions?).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I agree that it doesn't prove anything. I should have said more. I'm saying that IF there is evidence in this case that she had rough sex that could have caused said injuries, is it then unfair to establish that this is a pattern of behavior?

To continue in the robbery analogy, if there was some evidence that a guy had gone into a rough neighborhood and handed out money (not given to charity) on the very same day that he claimed to have been robbed, would it not make sense to show that he'd gone into rough neighborhoods and given out money in the past?

That would prove a pattern of charity (in the "rough neighborhood") not of falsely accusing someone of robbery. I think that proves my point that in rape cases, we presume patterns in our society whereas those assumed patterns wouldn't make sense in another case.

Establishing patterns of consent (be it to "rough sex" or "soft sex") do not prove anything about whether she consented to "rough sex" on the night in question.

To allow otherwise would ensure no prosecutions for the rapes of people engaged in rough sex, prostitution, BDSM, or other "alternative" sexual behaviors. Rape is almost impossible to prove as it is, but allowing whole segments of our population to become permanent targets because of their consensual lifestyles would be a bad, bad idea.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I agree that it doesn't prove anything. I should have said more. I'm saying that IF there is evidence in this case that she had rough sex that could have caused said injuries, is it then unfair to establish that this is a pattern of behavior?

To continue in the robbery analogy, if there was some evidence that a guy had gone into a rough neighborhood and handed out money (not given to charity) on the very same day that he claimed to have been robbed, would it not make sense to show that he'd gone into rough neighborhoods and given out money in the past?

Perhaps records such as the ones you list above might be relevant SkyDog, but I would think that the defense should not be handed all her medical records and be given carte blanche to search for these kinds of things. Perhaps if they could show they had reason to believe this was the case.

The records they were specifically looking to access were related to some attempted suicide(s?), and were planning on using those to attempt to discredit her. "Look, she's crazy, don't listen to her"

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That would prove a pattern of charity (in the "rough neighborhood") not of falsely accusing someone of robbery. I think that proves my point that in rape cases, we presume patterns in our society whereas those assumed patterns wouldn't make sense in another case.

Boy, that is a big jump, don't you think? ("I think that proves my point...") If I were on the jury, that would prove a pattern of charity AND arouse my suspicion that he might be "out to get" this one guy for some reason, and might just be enough to cause me to have "reasonable doubt" that a robbery took place.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Perhaps records such as the ones you list above might be relevant SkyDog, but I would think that the defense should not be handed all her medical records and be given carte blanche to search for these kinds of things. Perhaps if they could show they had reason to believe this was the case.

The records they were specifically looking to access were related to some attempted suicide(s?), and were planning on using those to attempt to discredit her. "Look, she's crazy, don't listen to her"

OK. I'm with you 100% there if that is the sort of thing that they're looking for.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Boy, that is a big jump, don't you think? ("I think that proves my point...") If I were on the jury, that would prove a pattern of charity AND arouse my suspicion that he might be "out to get" this one guy for some reason, and might just be enough to cause me to have "reasonable doubt" that a robbery took place.

Ok, let me try these two examples.

1) A man goes into a bad neighborhood and organizes a collection for the poor. He does this every week and is well known around the neighborhood for doing this. On this given day, he raises $250 and gives $150 out to a few homeless people on the street. He says the last $100 was stolen from him by the Defendant. The Defendant, who is also homeless, argues that the victim gave him the money. In this case, the victim will be called a "saint" by the witnesses for the prosecution and a conviction is a near certainty.

2) A woman goes into a bad neighborhood to meet some guys. She does this every week and is well known in around the neighborhood for doing this. On this given day, she hooks up with a guy at a bar and has sex at his apartment. She returns to the bar to have another drink and another guy starts flirting with her. They leave together, but she doesn't want to have sex with him. He rapes her in his apartment. In this case, the victim will be called a "whore" by the witnesses for the defense and a conviction is a near impossibility.

Why do these cases come out differently?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Boy, that is a big jump, don't you think? ("I think that proves my point...") If I were on the jury, that would prove a pattern of charity AND arouse my suspicion that he might be "out to get" this one guy for some reason, and might just be enough to cause me to have "reasonable doubt" that a robbery took place.

Then the defense should prove that the person has motive to "get" the person. The fact he hands out money would not be as damaging as proof for the causes of animosity toward that particular individual. That sort of evidence can be used in a rape defense (ie. boyfriend just broke up with girlfriend and she cries rape, etc).