Defense says law violates equal protection

Defense says law violates equal protection

s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8)	2/10/2004 7:22:59 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1731907 DENVER -- Kobe Bryant's defense team stepped up its attack Tuesday on a state law that makes it difficult to bring up the sexual history of alleged rape victims at trial. Defense attorney Hal Haddon argued in a court filing that people accused of sex crimes in Colorado are deprived of their right to equal protection because two state laws set a "blatant and fundamentally unfair double standard." One law says a defendant's sexual history is typically considered to be valuable information and should be presented to a jury. The other, the state's 30-year-old "rape shield" law, says the defense has to prove an alleged victim's sexual history is relevant in order to present it to jurors. Bryant's attorneys have asked state District Judge Terry Ruckriegle to declare that law unconstitutional, an argument that may have to be settled by the Colorado Supreme Court. In a November court filing, prosecutors said the rape-shield law has been upheld in earlier cases. Haddon, however, said his arguments appear to be the first such challenge to the law. He said the cases prosecutors cited in their filing were decided well before 1996, when Colorado lawmakers changed the law affecting sex-crime defendants to "increase the likelihood of successful prosecution of sexual offenders." He said prosecutors will have to prove the law is supported by a compelling state interest and achieves that purpose in the least restrictive manner possible -- rather than the defense being forced to prove the law is unconstitutional. The question of which side is required to prove its argument will probably be key to the judge's decision on whether the law is constitutional, said Dan Recht, past president of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. "It really is unfair that a defendant's sexual past comes in much more readily than an accuser's sexual past, even though the defendant has a whole lot more to lose," Recht said. "But it's always a safe bet to assume a court is going to find a statute constitutional."



"Richard"	2/11/2004 2:12:02 AM
s_knight8 wrote: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1731907 DENVER -- Kobe Bryant's defense team stepped up its attack Tuesday on a state law that makes it difficult to bring up the sexual history of alleged rape victims at trial. I whole heartedly agree. The prior behavior of a rape victim is not why the trial is taking place. The suspect has been charged with the crime and the prosecution or defense, must rely only on the evidence found that pertains to that event. The suspect has not been charged with the victim's prior behavior. The victim's behavioral pattern can only be used if it shows that the victim was in the habit of co-ercing others into similar acts on a regular basis. IOW, was the victim in the habit of having sexual relations with others on the spur of the moment? Was this act "just another score" gone bad? Has the victim previously filed charges against others for the same thing? If the answers to those questions can determine a pattern that would show the victim may not be playing fair, then her behavioral pattern should be presented. OTOH, can the opposing attorney present similar evidence about the defendant? Was the defendant in the habit of looking for, and finding such encounters? Is it "normal" for the defendant to be sexually engaged within two hours, specially at a late hour and a long flight? Being that the victim is barely 19 years old, I would think her sexual behavior pattern would be minimal and easily detected. Unless there is a lot more to this side of her life that has yet to be disclosed. Also taking into consideration is the time elements. 10:00 PM. Bryant checks into the hotel room. 11:00PM victim goes off duty at the same hotel. 12:30 AM Bryant rents a video to watch. Within 90 minutes, Bryant encounters the victim at his door. Was she there by invitation or did she go on her own? No one but two people knows what transpired in those 90 minutes. In essence, we have, "he said, she said". Until the jury renders a verdict, we may never know what happened in that 90 minutes. Let's leave it to the courts to decide who's guilty or innocent.

Report this post for offensive content