Kobe; Rape Shield Law

[Pure]

Is Kobe getting a raw deal? Is this rape shield law unfair to men?*

Kobe's lawyers argue that this law [see below] is unconstitutional, since it prevents K from getting a fair trial.

Secondly, even if the law is constitutional, they want certain evidence admitted under the 'exception' clause 1b; one such piece of evidence regards the victims prior sexual encounters that--it is alleged-- may have caused the injuries she says were caused by K.


http://www.hmichaelsteinberg.com/rapeshieldlaw.htm

Colorado Rape Shield Law

18-3-407. Victim's and witness' prior history - evidentiary hearing.

Statute text [start]

(1) Evidence of specific instances of the victim's or a witness' prior or subsequent sexual conduct, opinion evidence of the victim's or a witness' sexual conduct, and reputation evidence of the victim's or a witness' sexual conduct shall be presumed to be irrelevant except:

(a) Evidence of the victim's or witness' prior or subsequent sexual conduct with the actor;

(b) Evidence of specific instances of sexual activity showing the source or origin of semen, pregnancy, disease, or any similar evidence of sexual intercourse offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were or were not committed by the defendant.

(2) In any criminal prosecution under sections 18-3-402 to 18-3-405.5, 18-6-301, 18-6-302, 18-6-403, and 18-6-404, or for attempt or conspiracy to commit any crime under sections 18-3-402 to 18-3-405.5, 18-6-301, 18-6-302, 18-6-403, and 18-6-404, if evidence, that is not excepted under subsection (1) of this section, of specific instances of the victim's or a witness' prior or subsequent sexual conduct, or opinion evidence of the victim's or a witness' sexual conduct, or reputation evidence of the victim's or a witness' sexual conduct, or evidence that the victim or a witness has a history of false reporting of sexual assaults is to be offered at trial, the following procedure shall be followed:

(a) A written motion shall be made at least thirty days prior to trial, unless later for good cause shown, to the court and to the opposing parties stating that the moving party has an offer of proof of the relevancy and materiality of evidence of specific instances of the victim's or witness' prior or subsequent sexual conduct, or opinion evidence of the victim's or witness' sexual conduct, or reputation evidence of the victim's or witness' sexual conduct, or evidence that the victim or witness has a history of false reporting of sexual assaults that is proposed to be presented.

(b) The written motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit in which the offer of proof shall be stated.

(c) If the court finds that the offer of proof is sufficient, the court shall notify the other party of such and set a hearing to be held in camera prior to trial. In such hearing, the court shall allow the questioning of the victim or witness regarding the offer of proof made by the moving party and shall otherwise allow a full presentation of the offer of proof including, but not limited to, the presentation of witnesses.

(d) An in camera hearing may be held during trial if evidence first becomes available at the time of the trial or for good cause shown.

(e) At the conclusion of the hearing, if the court finds that the evidence proposed to be offered regarding the sexual conduct of the victim or witness is relevant to a material issue to the case, the court shall order that evidence may be introduced and prescribe the nature of the evidence or questions to be permitted. The moving party may then offer evidence pursuant to the order of the court. [end]
---

* Note: in my opinion millionaires, esp. celebrities, don't usually get a raw deal from the justice system

 

[Boxlicker101]

At one time, before the idea of date rape became so widespread, the law made a lot of sense. A woman would sometimes be afraid to complain because she wouldn't want her history dragged out into court and her reputation sullied. In the case of a forcible rape by a stranger, her sexual history was immaterial anyhow so it was banned from the court, and properly so.

In the case of what is called "date rape", like this one, it doesn't make that much sense. If he says "She was willing. It was consensual sex" and she says "I was unwilling. It was rape," he should be able to prove that she was willing. If he can show that she has frequently indulged in casual sex, frequently interracial such as in this case, that would be enough to at least show that it was probably consensual in this case also. I know the DA is supposed to prove guilt but in the case of rape, it is more often that the accused has to prove innocence.

This should strictly apply in a case like this one where there is disagreement over consent or not.

 

[minsue]

I've got to disagree with you, Box, and in a big way.

If he can show that she has frequently indulged in casual sex, frequently interracial such as in this case, that would be enough to at least show that it was probably consensual in this case also.

I just don't buy it. Simply because a person has had casual sex, that does not mean they will always be willing to have sex with any given person. That statement reminds me of an old boyfriend of mine. We lost our virginity with each other and had casual sex for months after we broke up. Years later, when he was living with his current girlfriend, he was completely confused and angry when I told him I wouldn't fuck him and asked me when I got moral. So maybe it's just a guy thing, thinking that if a woman will have casual sex in certain situations with certain people that must mean she'll have sex with anyone at any time. I'd like to think it's not, though.

- Mindy

 

[Guest]

Sorry, I've got to say it...

I'm fucked off with this kind of thread. I know some people like to debate and argue, and prove thier points and get one up, or whatever, but the sheer amount of BS that usually gets spouted *really* pisses me off.

I know I should've left this, but I can't. Not tonight.

Please, remember, some people get hurt by this kind of discussion. Don't go jumping to any conclusions now, and don't come back at me about any of this. It wouldn't be good.

Sorry to be confrontational, and I know I only have to stay away from certain threads, but it's like a car crash.

Katie

Edited to add a P.S. Mindy, it was sheer chance I posted after you. None of that was directed at you, honey.

 

[minsue]

Sorry, I've got to say it...

I'm fucked off with this kind of thread. I know some people like to debate and argue, and prove thier points and get one up, or whatever, but the sheer amount of BS that usually gets spouted *really* pisses me off.

I know I should've left this, but I can't. Not tonight.

Please, remember, some people get hurt by this kind of discussion. Don't go jumping to any conclusions now, and don't come back at me about any of this. It wouldn't be good.

Sorry to be confrontational, and I know I only have to stay away from certain threads, but it's like a car crash.

Katie

Edited to add a P.S. Mindy, it was sheer chance I posted after you. None of that was directed at you, honey.

Katie - I agree completely which is quite hypocritical since I am one who just can't help but argue on these threads. I lost it on another thread, though, so I have been trying to stay away from them. Fell off the wagon, but getting back on!

- Mindy

 

[Guest]

 

[Boxlicker101]

I've got to disagree with you, Box, and in a big way.

I just don't buy it. Simply because a person has had casual sex, that does not mean they will always be willing to have sex with any given person. That statement reminds me of an old boyfriend of mine. We lost our virginity with each other and had casual sex for months after we broke up. Years later, when he was living with his current girlfriend, he was completely confused and angry when I told him I wouldn't fuck him and asked me when I got moral. So maybe it's just a guy thing, thinking that if a woman will have casual sex in certain situations with certain people that must mean she'll have sex with anyone at any time. I'd like to think it's not, though.

- Mindy

Hi, Mindy. I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say "casual sex". What I mean is sex with a person and you don't even know the person's full name, have never seen him or her before and you don't expect to see each other again. What you were describing was a former boyfriend and long-time acquaintance, and sex with him was not what I would call casual.

I think hardly any guys actually believe that if a woman will have casual sex in certain situations with certain people that must mean she'll have sex with anyone at any time. I used to hope that if girls or women would have sex with other guys that they would also get it on with me but they never did. I didn't actually think they would, just hoped.

A couple things to remember: The courts are supposed to actually protect the innocent, so if Kobe Bryant did not commit a rape, he deserves to be protected. Although the prosecution is supposedly required to prove that a crime occurred, in a case like this one, especially an interracial case, an accusation by the woman is usually enough to get a conviction, even with no corroborating evidence, such as torn clothing or injuries, unless the man can prove his innocence, in other words, prove a negative. Even though the woman would be highly motivated to lie, because a conviction would probably result in collecting millions in damages and book deals, this is the case. Because of these things, I believe it should be allright for the accused to be able to prove that the woman often had casual sex, as I described it earlier.

Keep in mind, also, that Kobe Bryant is not "just anyone". He is a very rich and famous young professional athlete, and a lot of women would be attracted to him because of that.

I would readily agree that if a woman is raped and a man claims he didn't do it, and never had anything do do with her, then her sexual history should be off limits because it would then be not material.

I have to agree with Lou, though. I don't really like to get too involved in a thread like this one either. It too often results in negative feelings and I want to avoid them.

 

[Guest]

I have to agree with Lou, though. I don't really like to get too involved in a thread like this one either. It too often results in negative feelings and I want to avoid them.

So then don't, Box. You too, Min. Just look at who started the thread forfuckssake.

Perdita

 

[Pure]

perdida,
//So then don't[post], Box. You too, Min. Just look at who started the thread forfuckssake.

Perdita//

Thanks for the posting telling others not to post!

you're a gem, perd. may your hostile grudges consume you, as much as repeating them delights you!

do you think there could ever be a thread not primarily devoted to dramatic incidents in your life? (the depression thread being a nice example).

are there an insufficient number of "I love perdida" threads to address those aching needs?

would you like a few more started?

I'd be glad to help out!

 

[Pure]

mindy on posting to controversial threads:

"Fell off the wagon, but getting back on! "

great, mindy! we must certainly NOT have controversy; auntie would have one of her spells!

 

[minsue]

mindy on posting to controversial threads:

"Fell off the wagon, but getting back on! "

great, mindy! we must certainly NOT have controversy; auntie would have one of her spells!

I didn't particularly care for your response to Perdita, but seeing as how you had been personally attacked I could understand your anger. An overreaction in my mind, but hell I overreact all the time. I am curious though, pure, considering the reaction received on the Roe V Wade thread when I blew my top (in one of my overreactions, one might say) why on earth are you trying to goad me into an argument here?

 

[destinie21]

I'll throw in my two cents and say casual sex is immaterial in this case and any other rape case. Indulging in casual sex should have nothing to do with proving a case.

 

[kellycummings]

Part of what they are trying to prove is that her injuries could have come from someone she had sex with before or after Kobe. That is a big part of why they are doing this. In those terms, I agree with the defense but I also believe a rape victim does have a certain right to privacy in court that most others do not.

 

[Pure]

mindy said,

I didn't particularly care for your response to Perdita, but seeing as how you had been personally attacked I could understand your anger. An overreaction in my mind, but hell I overreact all the time. I am curious though, pure, considering the reaction received on the Roe V Wade thread when I blew my top (in one of my overreactions, one might say) why on earth are you trying to goad me into an argument here?

the posting is for any who want to discuss. your thoughtful postings are nice, but no 'goad' of you personally was intended.
it's just a news story, my friend, how do you know we even disagree??

for those with something to say, and a bit of mental balance, 'blow ups' on important topics come with the territory and are gotten past. finally they are forgotten.

 

[minsue]

mindy said,

I didn't particularly care for your response to Perdita, but seeing as how you had been personally attacked I could understand your anger. An overreaction in my mind, but hell I overreact all the time. I am curious though, pure, considering the reaction received on the Roe V Wade thread when I blew my top (in one of my overreactions, one might say) why on earth are you trying to goad me into an argument here?

the posting is for any who want to discuss. your thoughtful postings are nice, but no 'goad' of you personally was intended.
it's just a news story, my friend, how do you know we even disagree??

for those with something to say, and a bit of mental balance, 'blow ups' on important topics come with the territory and are gotten past. finally they are forgotten.

I have no idea your opinion of the news story, pure, and I certainly didn't think the thread itself was personal. It was your post above. I'd quote it again, but last time I did the sarcasm dripped all over my keyboard and it's hell to try to clean.

 

[destinie21]

I have no idea your opinion of the news story, pure, and I certainly didn't think the thread itself was personal. It was your post above. I'd quote it again, but last time I did the sarcasm dripped all over my keyboard and it's hell to try to clean.

lemon juice will wash that sarcasm right out

 

[minsue]

lemon juice will wash that sarcasm right out

I never would have thought to use lemon juice on such an acidic spill. I'll take some over to La Diosa's thread, too.

 

[Pure]

Ok, got it Mindy. It's the 'don't bring on one of aunties spells'.
Yes, a piece of sarcasm, a nudge.

But my reply is the same: the 'blow up' over there about Roe is a minor incident in the history of the universe. i'll get over any harsh things thrown my way; probably you'll get past any 'offense' or 'anger'. esp. since we we're in 90% agreement for heaven's sakes!

those with a bit of balance move on. the rough spots in otherwise good discussions just come with the territory.

in my book, you're always welcome. do as you will.

 

[Guest]

Pure,

Did you miss my post?

Ok, admittedly, from your veiwpoint, this from me may have come out of left field a little. But, if you have any issues with me, I'd appreciate it if you sent me a PM or email.

You might be thinking of my outburst as uncalled for and a little over-emotional. Well, quite honestly, I don't care. With the exception of one AH regular, nobody here really knows me. Nobody knows what my life has been like, and nobody knows how seriously I takes things sometimes.

Yes, I'm happy-go-lucky Loulou, but I am also dark-and-serious Katie.

Like I said, though, please don't go jumping to any conclusions, anyone. No doubt it would be the wrong conclusion.

I have completely sobered up now, after being given a good talking to by someone, and am thinking completely rationally again. Not at all... how did you put it? Lacking "mental balance." Oh, and btw, some things are not so easily forgotten.

Lou

P.S. Apologies if I spoilt this thread for you.

 

[Pure]

Hi Lou,

sorry I didn't reply to you directly.

you said Sorry, I've got to say it...

I'm fucked off with this kind of thread. I know some people like to debate and argue, and prove thier points and get one up, or whatever, but the sheer amount of BS that usually gets spouted *really* pisses me off.

I know I should've left this, but I can't. Not tonight.

Please, remember, some people get hurt by this kind of discussion. Don't go jumping to any conclusions now, and don't come back at me about any of this. It wouldn't be good.

Sorry to be confrontational, and I know I only have to stay away from certain threads, but it's like a car crash.

Katie

OK, you're posting as to why you're not posting. Got it.
Yes, people get upset. Well, there's plenty of weather threads, and 'like your av' stuff. No one drags them into these 'hot' threads.

Ok, admittedly, from your veiwpoint, this from me may have come out of left field a little. But, if you have any issues with me, I'd appreciate it if you sent me a PM or email.

no issues I know of

You might be thinking of my outburst as uncalled for and a little over-emotional. Well, quite honestly, I don't care. With the exception of one AH regular, nobody here really knows me. Nobody knows what my life has been like, and nobody knows how seriously I takes things sometimes.

hey be as emotional as you like. chose threads the don't disturb your tranquillity, if that's what you're here for. but since you've got a lot to say, it's very nice if you do get into some 'hot' topics.

 

[kellycummings]

Wow, this thread got way out of hand. Remind me not to piss any of you off.

 

[The_old_man]

In response to the original post; Recent front page story, a man spent several years in prison because a couple girls told cops that they had been molested. after years of thinking about it they confessed to having lied. Yes I think that any accuser should face the accused and prove the accusation.

If any one does not like this reply ... come back later.

 

[Pure]

The Old Man said,

//Yes I think that any accuser should face the accused and prove the accusation.//

I believe this is the case in rape trials at present, though it's the prosecutors who are in charge of 'proving' the charge.

If you mean that the rape 'victim', alleged, should have to take the stand and be cross examined, I believe this is virtually always the case, if she's alive and talking.

In the book "Lucky" by Sebold, is a very full account of her bringing a rape charge and going to trial. She certainly faced the accused and got grilled by his lawyer.

I think you're hinting at something NOT related to the rape shield issue. Rape shield is about excluding testimony/argument that the woman fucked ten guys for fun, the previous year, so maybe she did this one for a lark, also.

What you're talking about is the issue of uncorroborated testimony of the woman, no other physical evidence. Should a conviction be possible on that basis? In fact, it rarely ever happens.

But there are criminal cases which proceed on 'one person's word against another', though the popular myth is that that's never going to go anywhere. The jury and judge routinely decide who is credible, or more credible, and proceed on that basis.

The case you cite below is not a pure case of that, of course, since two women colluded, apparently, and agreed on a story. But again the issue would be, should a conviction be possible without physical evidence.

TOM: In response to the original post; Recent front page story, a man spent several years in prison because a couple girls told cops that they had been molested. after years of thinking about it they confessed to having lied.

I hope you'll elaborate your thoughts as promised. I did post the text of the rape shield law, which is worth a quick read.

J.