Defense Disputes Use of 'Victim'

Defense Disputes Use of 'Victim'

s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8)	2/26/2004 8:26:29 AM
http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/la-sp-bryant26feb26,1,7512811.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-nba-lakers Kobe Bryant's attorneys said in a court filing Wednesday that the woman who has accused the Laker star of rape is not a "victim" under the law. "Kobe Bryant is presumed innocent," attorney Hal Haddon wrote in bold type. "That pronouncement cannot be dismissed as merely a defense position or a statement made for public relations purposes. It is the undisputed truth under Colorado law and the state and federal constitutions." Haddon was responding to a prosecution motion requesting that a hearing pertaining to the 19-year-old woman's medical and mental health history, as well as her alleged alcohol and drug use, be conducted in closed court. Haddon agreed the hearing should be closed, but not for the reason advanced by prosecutors — that the woman has rights afforded to "victims" under Colorado law. "Characterizations of the accuser as a victim in this case violate the presumption of innocence and invade the province of the jury," he said. Haddon said that in other types of criminal cases there is no question that a crime was committed or that "the alleged victim was, in fact, a 'victim.' " However, in a sexual assault allegation that hinges on consent, the central issue is whether a crime occurred at all. In a motion to conduct the hearing in closed court, Dist. Atty. Mark Hurlbert said the woman was protected under the Colorado Victim's Rights Amendment statute, which states that a victim "has a right to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity." Hurlbert wrote: "To have irrelevant and embarrassing information broadcast throughout the country before it is even ruled admissible is surely not being treated with dignity." The Colorado rape-shield law refers to those who make accusations of sexual assault as "victims." Krista Flannigan, Hurlbert's spokeswoman, said that anyone who brings an accusation of sexual assault is commonly considered a victim, giving the person the right to be kept informed of developments in the case, to have access to community services and to request financial restitution. A spokeswoman for the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault said the argument is largely one of semantics. "CCASA believes in the presumption of innocence," Cynthia Stone said. "We believe in fair trials. We believe Mr. Bryant is owed his day in court. But we think [Haddon's motion] is taking it too far." Stone acknowledged that "accuser" and "victim" are words that can be construed as biased. She said CCASA has wrestled with the proper term to describe someone reporting a sexual assault crime, finally settling on "alleged victim."



"krp@verizon.net"	2/26/2004 5:49:17 PM
"s_knight8" <s_knight8@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6bd12cd6.0402260826.312c2832@posting.google.com... http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/la-sp-bryant26feb26,1,7512811.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-nba-lakers Kobe Bryant's attorneys said in a court filing Wednesday that the woman who has accused the Laker star of rape is not a "victim" under the law. "Kobe Bryant is presumed innocent," attorney Hal Haddon wrote in bold type. "That pronouncement cannot be dismissed as merely a defense position or a statement made for public relations purposes. It is the undisputed truth under Colorado law and the state and federal constitutions." Haddon was responding to a prosecution motion requesting that a hearing pertaining to the 19-year-old woman's medical and mental health history, as well as her alleged alcohol and drug use, be conducted in closed court. Haddon agreed the hearing should be closed, but not for the reason advanced by prosecutors — that the woman has rights afforded to "victims" under Colorado law. "Characterizations of the accuser as a victim in this case violate the presumption of innocence and invade the province of the jury," he said. By the state declaring her a "victim" and the court endorsing that status, they indeed already have found Bryant Guilty beyond question. Why bother with a trial? Why do we EVER bother with trials? Why not adopt the Napoleonic code where we presume that people are "ABSOLUTELY GUILTY" and it is impossible to prove them innocent? Seems like it would really speed things up and make trial so much easier. You being know the accused is guilty, all you need to decide is how badly to screw them over.

Report this post for offensive content