Judge Terry Ruckriegle made the right ruling today in the Kobe Bryant case. He denied a prosecution request to have both parties file all motions pertaining to evidence in the case under seal. We wrote a few weeks ago when the DA filed the motion,

The prosecution is seeking to have all future pleadings in the case that refer to evidence in the case filed under seal. This is wrong, and there is a much fairer way to accomplish the goal. Each side should file two versions of any pleading containing information that shoud not be made public--one of which is the entire pleading, filed under seal, and the other is a redacted version for the public, with just the sensitive material deleted and so noted. This was done in the Oklahoma bombing trials and it worked well.

To seal all evidentiary pleadings in their entirety is contrary to the public's right to know and the First Amendment.

That's exactly what the Judge ordered today:

...Judge Terry Ruckriegle said, attorneys in the case can file motions about Bryant and his accuser that leave sensitive details to be filed separately under seal. The judge urged attorneys to make sealed filings "sparingly and wisely" and he chided the prosecution for citing "no legal authority" to seal all details of evidence.

In other Kobe news, the defense filed a motion today asking the Court to order the DA to investigate whether any "hangman t-shirts" were ordered by the Sheriff's department, and if so, how many. Kobe attorney Pamela Mackey stated in the motion that the Sheriff's office refused to supply the information to the defense, and that the information is relevant to show the bias of the investigating agencies. She also stated that the t-shirts had been described as "racist and 'invocative of Klan lynching and wholly inappropriate in modern society."

The defense in the Kobe Bryant case denies leaking information about the accuser to a retired judge as previously reported.

This troubles us: The prosecution is seeking to have all future pleadings in the case that refer to evidence in the case filed under seal. This is wrong, and there is a much fairer way to accomplish the goal. Each side should file two versions of any pleading containing information that shoud not be made public--one of which is the entire pleading, filed under seal, and the other is a redacted version for the public, with just the sensitive material deleted and so noted. This was done in the Oklahoma bombing trials and it worked well.

To seal all evidentiary pleadings in their entirety is contrary to the public's right to know and the First Amendment. We hope the media lawyers get right on opposing it.

In other Kobe case news, the new issue of the Globe will not only be running the accuser's picture again, but making an explosive allegation that she had sex with a certain prosecution witness who is critical to the prosecution's case not long before the incident with Kobe.

All Kobe pleadings are available at the court's website here. Read them while you still can.

Kobe Bryant appeared in court today in Eagle County. He did not enter a plea. No trial date was set but two motions hearings were scheduled:

Ruckriegle set a pretrial hearing for Dec. 19 to consider motions by the attorneys and another for Jan. 23 to settle various disputes, including whether records from an Eagle-area rape crisis center should be given to the defense.

Trial mostly likely will occur after the end of the NBA season.

The new issue of Newsweek has an excellent profile on Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon, Kobe Bryant's defense counsel. Some quotes from lawyers who know them:

“Pam is always on the attack for her client, not on defense,” says attorney Larry Pozner. Despite the tailored suits and piercing interrogations, Mackey, 47, bucks the stereotype of the ruthless, high-paid defense attorney. She represented indigent clients in the public defender’s office: “Pam had an incredible dedication to people who had nothing, who were nobody,” says Mark Johnson, her former boss there.

.... How nasty a fight are Mackey and Haddon prepared to wage? “I think she will attack [Kobe’s accuser’s] story , as opposed to her character ,” says Jeralyn Merritt, a defense lawyer. “She’s not mean-spirited.”

The new issue of Newsweek has an excellent profile on Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon, Kobe Bryant's defense counsel. Some quotes from lawyers who know them:

“Pam is always on the attack for her client, not on defense,” says attorney Larry Pozner. Despite the tailored suits and piercing interrogations, Mackey, 47, bucks the stereotype of the ruthless, high-paid defense attorney. She represented indigent clients in the public defender’s office: “Pam had an incredible dedication to people who had nothing, who were nobody,” says Mark Johnson, her former boss there.

.... How nasty a fight are Mackey and Haddon prepared to wage? “I think she will attack [Kobe’s accuser’s] story , as opposed to her character ,” says Jeralyn Merritt, a defense lawyer. “She’s not mean-spirited.”

The prosecution in the Kobe Bryant case has filed a motion accusing the defense of leaking details of the semen found on the accuser's underwear that did not match Kobe Bryant. The origninal news article publishing the details is here.

The source of the information, a retired Colorado Judge, has stated that the reporter mis-stated his comments and that he (the Judge) has not spoken with defense attorney Hal Haddon in ten years. The prosecution alleges the Judge is lying, but does not set forth facts to support the allegation--other than that the reporter says he got the quote right. Also, there is no time frame for the alleged statement from Haddon to Retired Judge Jones. What basis does the prosecution have for alleging the comment, if made, was made after the July 24 Order limiting extra-judicial comments? And what evidence does it have that if the statement was made by a member of the defense team or someone associated with it, that the statement was not made in confidence rather than intended for dissemination?

In other Kobe news, now that the Kobe Bryant case has been transferred from county court to district court, a new judge will be taking over. There are 22 districts in Colorado. Each district is made up of one or more counties. In districts with multiple counties, the counties are within close geographic proximity to each other. The Fifth judicial district includes Eagle, Clear Creek, Lake and Summit Counties. Each district has a chief judge. In the 5th District, the chief Judge is Terry Ruckriegle of Summit County (Breckenridge and Georgeown).

In the ordinary case, a district court judge from Eagle would preside over Kobe Bryant's trial. That would be Judge Richard Hart or Thomas Moorhead.

It was announced today that Fifth District chief Judge Terry Ruckriegle will preside over the Kobe trial. The Eagle county district court judges are being bypassed.

Does Ruckriegle intend to grant a change of venue to Breckenridge? In a locally high profile murder trial last year, Ruckriegle moved the trial from Breckenridge to Eagle and presided over the trial there.

The prosecution in the Kobe Bryant case has filed a motion accusing the defense of leaking details of the semen found on the accuser's underwear that did not match Kobe Bryant. The origninal news article publishing the details is here.

The source of the information, a retired Colorado Judge, has stated that the reporter mis-stated his comments and that he (the Judge) has not spoken with defense attorney Hal Haddon in ten years. The prosecution alleges the Judge is lying, but does not set forth facts to support the allegation--other than that the reporter says he got the quote right. Also, there is no time frame for the alleged statement from Haddon to Retired Judge Jones. What basis does the prosecution have for alleging the comment, if made, was made after the July 24 Order limiting extra-judicial comments? And what evidence does it have that if the statement was made by a member of the defense team or someone associated with it, that the statement was not made in confidence rather than intended for dissemination?

In other Kobe news, now that the Kobe Bryant case has been transferred from county court to district court, a new judge will be taking over. There are 22 districts in Colorado. Each district is made up of one or more counties. In districts with multiple counties, the counties are within close geographic proximity to each other. The Fifth judicial district includes Eagle, Clear Creek, Lake and Summit Counties. Each district has a chief judge. In the 5th District, the chief Judge is Terry Ruckriegle of Summit County (Breckenridge and Georgeown).

In the ordinary case, a district court judge from Eagle would preside over Kobe Bryant's trial. That would be Judge Richard Hart or Thomas Moorhead.

It was announced today that Fifth District chief Judge Terry Ruckriegle will preside over the Kobe trial. The Eagle county district court judges are being bypassed.

Does Ruckriegle intend to grant a change of venue to Breckenridge? In a locally high profile murder trial last year, Ruckriegle moved the trial from Breckenridge to Eagle and presided over the trial there.

Not surprisingly, the Judge issued its ruling today finding probable cause to make Kobe Bryant stand trial. Here is the ruling.

The Judge defines the probable cause standard as evidence, that when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would induce a reasonable belief that the defendant committed the charged crime.

Update: Our view:

Jeralyn Merritt, a Denver defense lawyer and legal commentator, said this "was one of the weakest findings of probable cause I've seen."

"This order sends a clear message to prosecutors - that they better have something substantially more significant than what they presented at the preliminary hearing or the case is going nowhere."

Rita Cosby on Fox News is reporting new information about the accuser's yellow panties that she wore to her rape exam the day following the encounter with Kobe. "Sources close to the prosecution" now tell Rita that these were dirty panties lying around the accuser's room that she just happened to put on. Panties that were dirty from a sexual encounter that had happened weeks earlier. Isn't this in violation of the gag order?

This is laughable. We repeat, the prosecution wants to say the accuser wore dirty underwear she had laying around her room for weeks following another sexual encounter to her rape exam. Talk about damage to the accuser's reputation....who wants to be known for having such poor personal hygeine that you leave dirty underwear around your room for weeks - and then re-wear it?

But more troubling is Rita's repeated references to "sources close to the prosecution." All law enforcement, prosecutors and court personnel are effectively gagged by the court's July 24 Order. The Order also directs prosecutors to maintain a tight lid on their investigators and employees. Time for another investigation.

Some people just can't count. Today's big Kobe Bryant news claims the accuser in the case wasn't harmed by allegations that she had had sex with boyfriend a few days before her encounter with Kobe. The articles quotes a former prosecutor (and oddly, only a former prosecutor, who is also a victim's rights advocate, not quite fair and balanced) who says the evidence shows only that the accuser had sex with her boyfriend and with Kobe.

Here's the evidence that was presented at the hearing, all from the prosecution witness and his reports:

• The accuser told the officer she had consensual sex a June 27 or June 28, two to three days before her encounter with Kobe on June 30. Her partner was wearing a condom.

• June 30: Sex with Kobe. The officer says the accuser provided him with the underwear she wore durign the encounter when he went to her home to interview her on the afternoon of July 1.

• July 1: Later on July 1, the accuser goes to Valley View Hospital for her rape exam wearing yellow knit underwear that is not the same underwear she wore during the encounter with Kobe, which she had already provided to the police. The yellow underwear contains blood and semen. The semen is tested for DNA and it is not Kobe's semen. A caucasian pubic hair is also found in her underwear.

If the partner in encounter number 1 was wearing a condom, the logical inference is there would be no semen in her underwear afterwards--particularly three days afterwards. Thus, three men in three days.

The number of men is not important except to show repetitive sex within a short period of time. The defense is arguing there was no sexual assault by anyone. The injuries were not the result of the application of physical force by Kobe or anyone else. They will likely present expert testimony at trial to show that repetitive consensual sex within a three day period can cause bruising and slight bleeding and the kind of pin-point lacerations on the posterior fourchette as experienced by the accuser.

For the first time in ages, we missed an entire day of blogging. Between court for clients in the morning, and coveriing the Kobe Bryant hearing in the afternoon and evening, we just didn't get to a computer. We're amazed that our site stats show that 7,500 unique visitors stopped by anyway. Thanks to all of you readers, that feels really good.

As to Kobe Bryant, here's the top five news items from today's hearing:

1. The detective testified that the accuser went to her rape exam the day after the event wearing panties that contained blood and semen from someone other than Kobe Bryant. These panties were yellow, and not the same as the ones she was wearing during the encounter with Kobe, which she also turned over to police. Also, there was a caucasian hair found in her pubic area at the time of her rape exam, about 18 hours after her encounter with Kobe.

2. The detective testified that the accuser said she had consensual sex with another partner two or three days before the incident with Kobe, during which her partner wore a condom.

3. The detective testified the accuser did not tell him in the first interview that she said "no" to Kobe during their five minutes of intercourse. It wasn't until a later interview that she added that she said "no." In the first interview, she told the detective that Kobe stopped when she resisted.

4. The night auditor of the hotel saw the accuser right after the incident and says she did not appear distraught and it did not seem like anything was amiss.

5. Kobe Bryant was examined from head to toe and had no marks on him.

The Judge refused the People's request to close today's hearing and allowed Pamela Mackey to resume questioning where she left off last week - with evidence of the woman's sexual activity that occurred near the time of her encounter with Kobe.

All in all, the Judge will bind the case over because the burden of proof is so low at a preliminary hearing, but a conviction seems less and less likely. All of the evidence today came from prosecution reports turned over to the defense. We haven't even seen an iota of what the defense investigation has revealed, and we bet its considerable.

The Judge is expected to rule on the issue of probable cause by Monday. Relevant news articles can be found here and here.

We'll be back tomorrow with non-Kobe related coverage.

Update: The prosecution has just filed a request to close the portions of the preliminary hearing addressing the accuser's sexual conduct. The response alleges that Pamela Mackey consciously misrepresented the evidence "in order to smear the victim publicly." [Shouldn't they have waited until they hear from her witness(es) before making that allegation?]

Yet, the People implicitly acknowledge that the advance notice requirement of the rape shield law doesn't apply at preliminary hearings. They say an in camera hearing is in line with "the intent" of the Rape Shield statute--not the language of the act. Big difference. Also, they attach a sealed "offer of proof" to the motion that they say supports their position that the accuser's sexual conduct "arguably" is protected by the Rape Shield act and ask for an in camera (closed) hearing on the issue.

Update: CBS analyst Andrew Cohen provides a good analysis of the issues here. AP article on the proseuction's motion is here.

************
Original post:

The defense may call witnesses at tomorrow's continuation of the Kobe Bryant preliminary hearing. Colorado rules specifically allow for the defense to present evidence at such hearings.