From the beginning of the Kobe Bryant case, I have not been on his side. The celebrity worship that occurs in this country causes me to chuckle when someone famous gets taken down a few notches. That said, I make no apologies for what he was accused of doing, the subsequent backlash from his sponsors, the embarrassment it caused him and his family, or the simple cost of defending himself. He clearly put himself in a bad situation--a situation questionable enough for someone to accuse him of nonconsensual sexual contact, whatever degree may have actually occurred.
I am appalled by the recent dismissal of charges against Kobe Bryant caused by the Accuser’s refusal to testify in the criminal trial. She’s more than willing to testify in a civil case, which is certainly still going to happen, but the criminal trial where no monetary damages are available is not really something she wants to do. Does she realize that in order to get any money in civil court she’s going to have to show that shielded-no-more face of hers?
Many issues irk me regarding this dismissal, but one issue that does not is the fact that she’s running for the money now. It’s tough to be bothered by the predictable. It’s what she has done to every other legitimate claim of rape that any other woman may make. She’s cheapened the accusation of rape, in a system that doesn’t go far enough protecting the rights of rape victims.
Don’t get me wrong. I thought the ruling by the judge that allowed sexual history evidence for the 72 hours prior to the incident was appropriate. If she charges him with physical injury, he says I didn’t do that and I have evidence that someone else possibly did it, Kobe is allowed to mount a defense on that issue. That’s why we have trials: To contest issues of fact. Because this case was a rape case, the courts should be steadfast in protecting victims from having their entire sexual histories brought out into public.
After the ruling I heard Doc Walker of the John Thompson Show say, “So it’s ok to rape a slut in this country I guess.” No it’s not Doc, but your point is well taken and that’s what rape shield laws seek to protect. If a woman is promiscuous, her previous promiscuity is irrelevant. As a prosecutor you don’t want the jury to infer that this woman invited the sex in the current incident simply because she invited it with any frequency earlier. However, the issue of fact of whether Kobe is the person who caused her physical damage should be open to cross-examination in court.
What’s the public going to expect from the judicial system now? Is Doc Walker right? Can your rape a slut? It certainly seems so, as the aforementioned prosecutor would commit an ethical violation if he didn’t do all he could to protect his accuser’s reputation from being slapped all over the courtroom walls, that is, unless the victim is a nun. You want that in front of the jury.
The message that the public gets here is that women make false rape claims. Then they go for what they can get in civil court if you have any wealth. In a country where sexual double standards are openly in effect, the public watches a rape “trial” go down just like they expected: “Sluts are sluts. Kobe just wants to play ball and this bitch has to bring him down with these charges.”
Just read Kobe’s quotes regarding his newly found sympathy. “I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter,” and that “he can only imagine the pain she’s had to endure.” The principle being reinforced here is the fact that to the public these proceedings have been about saving a basketball player, not about justice for a victim. The burden is certainly on her and the State to prove the facts of the case, but in the public’s eyes, she must also prove her chastity, and this case only reinforces that precedent. Doc Walker’s ruling affirmed, unfortunately.
The Accuser in this case has set back sexual assault victims, rape shield laws, and women in general 10 years. Many jurisdictions had finally recognized rape shield laws were actually necessary to encourage victims to come forward with charges without fear of the aforementioned moral trial. And what did she do it for? Maybe she did it out of a sense of justice initially, but now it appears that she going for what she can get out of it. Maybe she’ll get the big payday in the end, as Kobe would probably just want the whole thing to go away now, but the real losers here are all the women out there who thought they could turn to their local Eagle County Prosecutor and the protection of the law to vindicate crimes against their person and sexuality. I wonder how many sexual assault claims in Eagle County won’t be adequately prosecuted in the future because of lack of resources drained by one.
Now Colorado and the Eagle County community are stuck with an Accuser who says thanks but no thanks to the State’s wasted efforts and expenditures. It’s an awful precedent to set, as it only cuts against a class of people, even if proceeding with the criminal trial was less profitable.
Maybe the Accuser can bankroll the next woman’s rape prosecution? You know, give back everything she took away from the State of Colorado, Eagle County and women around the country.
Nathan Coleman is an attorney living in Washington D.C. He grew up in Oklahoma City, went to the University of Missouri, Kansas City where he played soccer and earned a B.A. in Literature. He obtained his law degree at the University of Cincinnati and is licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
