|
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/kobebryanttrial/2888363/detail.html
In the Kobe Bryant case, it is now March 2004 and no plea has yet been
entered on this case filed way back in July of 2003. Indeed, right
now, there is no plea in sight. A trial in the case will not occur
sooner than the latter part of 2004. Who is responsible for the delay?
In largest part, it is the prosecution.
For many months, the District Attorney resisted defense requests to
have its expert be present at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation
when consumptive testing of forensic evidence occurred. The
prosecution adamantly refused to share the physical evidence for
examination by defense experts. There was one problem with this
strategy. It is contrary to established Colorado law.
In Colorado, prosecutors and defense attorneys must share physical
evidence. When push came to shove on the issue at a motions hearing on
Feb. 2, 2004, Mark Hurlbert seemed to see the light and the law and
withdrew his spurious objection. Or so we thought.
The DA and defense announced in open court on Groundhog Day that the
DA had agreed to share. A stipulated order was drafted and signed by
the judge. Paragraph 3 of that order provided that all clothing to be
analyzed would, following Colorado Bureau of Investigation analysis,
be packed off to Technical Associates, the defense crime lab in
Southern California.
That is why it was a surprise on March 1, 2004 when the first motion
of the day concerned Mark Hurlbert's command that CBI would not share
the critical crotch portions of the complaining witness' underwear.
Two pairs of her underwear have been the subject of analysis. First
was the purple pair that the alleged victim says she was wearing on
June 30, 2003 when she had her sexual encounter with Kobe Bryant. The
second pair was the yellow knit panties the accuser had on when she
went to Valley View Hospital for the rape kit exam on the afternoon of
July 1, 2003. Purple and yellow happen to be the colors of the Los
Angeles Lakers.
Increasingly red was the face of Eagle County District Court Judge
Tery Ruckriegle as he tried to understand the theory of DA Mark
Hurlbert who seemed to violate the clear Court order.
Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, the defense DNA expert, testified as to the
refusal of CBI to hand over the underwear crotches when she visited
the CBI facility to retrieve them last week. Hurlbert sought to
establish on cross examination that this DNA expert could do the
testing right there at CBI. One big problem -- that is not what the
court order said. Judge Ruckriegle told Mark Hurlbert that his
argument was without merit.
District attorneys are generally sticklers for following court orders.
DAs are supposed to embrace the truth and deal with it; not run and
hide from it. Prosecutors usually abhor delay. All the normal rules
for prosecutors were reversed during this hearing on the first day of
March. Politically correct protection of alleged victims does not
justify such tactics. It is hard to see how this case will end well
for prosecutors who fail to play by the rules.
|
| |
| |
|
