Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Kobe Bryant Case
Aired October 02, 2003 - 11:21 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: A judge could rule today on some key issues in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. Among the decisions to be made, whether Bryant's alleged victim should have to testify in next week's preliminary hearing.
Meanwhile, Bryant and the L.A. Lakers are reporting for training camp in Hawaii while dealing with this media attention coming from this case.
Let's talk about this with attorney and sports columnist Rob Becker.
Good to see you again, Rob. Glad to have you with us to talk about this.
ROB BECKER, ATTORNEY & SPORTS COLUMNIST: Hi.
HARRIS: All right, first off, there are a couple of things, or actually maybe three things, that Judge Cannon (ph) has got to deal with in court today. How about the first motion, this idea of moving that to make the alleged -- make the accuser, the alleged victim, testify in court. What do you think will happen with that?
BECKER: I think it will be denied. Remember that at this hearing, the standard is just, is there reasonable cause to believe that a crime was committed? It's not like proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. Here the prosecution's going to have a statement from Bryant, from the accuser. They'll have the testimony of the investigator and pictures of medical injuries.
So the prosecution is going to say, look, with all of that, there's nothing that this woman could say on the stand that would sway the judge back into believing there's not probable cause here, because in theory, the only way you could do that is to show that everything she says show that she's a lunatic, you know, that she's either a liar or a lunatic, and you can't trust what she says, so that everything should be thrown out. There's no reason to believe that she has that in her past, and that if she gets on the stand, she would reveal that.
So with all of that, they're going to say, look, protect this woman from being harassed twice, she should just have to go through this once.
HARRIS: This could actually even backfire on the defense, couldn't it? I mean, she could get out there and actually present herself as a sympathetic person, couldn't she? BECKER: Sure, that could happen. I think that they would prefer to have her just to get two cracks at it, but that could happen, as you say.
HARRIS: How about the second motion, the one about getting access to all of her medical records. What do you think is going to happen with that? And do you expect a decision to be made today on that one?
BECKER: Well, that's a good point. I definitely don't think that they will be granted the records now. I think either the motion will be denied, or the judge will say, I don't want to make a decision now. Excuse me. I'll let this decision be made later by the district judge that will cover the trial.
Because here, I mean, the defense has to say two arguments. They're saying, well, you know, it's very crucial what's in those records. Those records, again, will reveal something that goes to her credibility. And even though they're privileged, they're so important, that under the Constitution's right to confront the accuser, we should be allowed to see it.
Now again, for the reasons I've just said, it's very unlikely that there's anything in there that rises to that level. Then they're going to -- the defense will say, anyway, she waived her medical privilege, it doesn't matter, we get to see it.
But what they have to show is more than what they've said so far. They said she's been talking about the incident to people so she waived it. But what they need to show is what she talked about what she told her doctor or what her doctor told her. If that happened, there's a waiver and they get to see it.
HARRIS: Well, back up for a second, how is it that they can actually put forth a position that she's waived her privilege here?
BECKER: Well..
HARRIS: Her privacy privilege with her own doctors?
BECKER: Well, that can happen accidentally. Obviously, clearly, she would not have intended to do so. But if it's clear she's been telling people, I told my doctor blah-blah-blah, and my doctor advised me to do blah-blah-blah, if they can prove that happens, that's a waiver whether she likes it or not. I doubt that's what happened, but that would be a waiver, and that's certainly a strong argument. Maybe it wouldn't be a waiver with respect to everything and everyone, but it would at least be a partial waiver and perhaps a complete waiver of those records.
HARRIS: And that's interesting. So that could be something where she's not done, but some of her case it's just by her own talking to her own friends.
Let me ask you about something else, too. We only have a couple of minutes here, the idea that maybe the jury pool could be tainted, or polluted, if you will, by publicity, and pictures coming from this preliminary hearing. Will the judge make a call anytime soon on whether this hearing next week is going to be an open one?
BECKER: Oh, definitely, I think that will be today. Remember, Leon, he's already decided that no cameras, both still and live, are not allowed. And the issue is, can reporters go into that courtroom with pens and paper and report about it and put it on the Internet. He that is to decide that, because everyone needs to know.
I think he's going to allow the reporters in, because although, as the defense says, there is a risk that inadmissible evidence, remember, there will be inadmissible evidence allowed in at the hearing that is not allowed at the trial, and there's a risk that will come out, potential jurors will hear about it, and they'll walk into the trial and have their minds made up based on evidence they haven't heard.
But here, what's at stake here is just whether it appears in newspapers. I think the judge can to himself, look, as long as I haven't had cameras in there, if it appears in the newspaper, there will still be many people who don't know about it, because they haven't read it in the papers, so we'll be able to get a good jury.
On the other side of the coin, he's going to say, look, traditionally in Colorado, hearings like this have always been open to the press to come in and write about them, and the Constitution even says trials are public, which somewhat applies to hearings, so he's not going to want to go against that whole background, because he knows at the same time there won't be enough jury (UNINTELLIGIBLE). So he's going to let the press go in there with paper and pen, I predict.
HARRIS: All right then. To put you on the spot on the way out here, will we have a decision by what time this afternoon, what do you think?
BECKER: Well, it's about 9:20 in Colorado. I think we'll get it by 12:00 in Colorado. How about that?
HARRIS: All right, fine. We'll hold you to that. Appreciate it, Rob. Take care.
BECKER: Thank you.
HARRIS: We'll talk to you down the road. Rob Becker.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired October 2, 2003 - 11:21 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: A judge could rule today on some key issues in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. Among the decisions to be made, whether Bryant's alleged victim should have to testify in next week's preliminary hearing.
Meanwhile, Bryant and the L.A. Lakers are reporting for training camp in Hawaii while dealing with this media attention coming from this case.
Let's talk about this with attorney and sports columnist Rob Becker.
Good to see you again, Rob. Glad to have you with us to talk about this.
ROB BECKER, ATTORNEY & SPORTS COLUMNIST: Hi.
HARRIS: All right, first off, there are a couple of things, or actually maybe three things, that Judge Cannon (ph) has got to deal with in court today. How about the first motion, this idea of moving that to make the alleged -- make the accuser, the alleged victim, testify in court. What do you think will happen with that?
BECKER: I think it will be denied. Remember that at this hearing, the standard is just, is there reasonable cause to believe that a crime was committed? It's not like proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. Here the prosecution's going to have a statement from Bryant, from the accuser. They'll have the testimony of the investigator and pictures of medical injuries.
So the prosecution is going to say, look, with all of that, there's nothing that this woman could say on the stand that would sway the judge back into believing there's not probable cause here, because in theory, the only way you could do that is to show that everything she says show that she's a lunatic, you know, that she's either a liar or a lunatic, and you can't trust what she says, so that everything should be thrown out. There's no reason to believe that she has that in her past, and that if she gets on the stand, she would reveal that.
So with all of that, they're going to say, look, protect this woman from being harassed twice, she should just have to go through this once.
HARRIS: This could actually even backfire on the defense, couldn't it? I mean, she could get out there and actually present herself as a sympathetic person, couldn't she? BECKER: Sure, that could happen. I think that they would prefer to have her just to get two cracks at it, but that could happen, as you say.
HARRIS: How about the second motion, the one about getting access to all of her medical records. What do you think is going to happen with that? And do you expect a decision to be made today on that one?
BECKER: Well, that's a good point. I definitely don't think that they will be granted the records now. I think either the motion will be denied, or the judge will say, I don't want to make a decision now. Excuse me. I'll let this decision be made later by the district judge that will cover the trial.
Because here, I mean, the defense has to say two arguments. They're saying, well, you know, it's very crucial what's in those records. Those records, again, will reveal something that goes to her credibility. And even though they're privileged, they're so important, that under the Constitution's right to confront the accuser, we should be allowed to see it.
Now again, for the reasons I've just said, it's very unlikely that there's anything in there that rises to that level. Then they're going to -- the defense will say, anyway, she waived her medical privilege, it doesn't matter, we get to see it.
But what they have to show is more than what they've said so far. They said she's been talking about the incident to people so she waived it. But what they need to show is what she talked about what she told her doctor or what her doctor told her. If that happened, there's a waiver and they get to see it.
HARRIS: Well, back up for a second, how is it that they can actually put forth a position that she's waived her privilege here?
BECKER: Well..
HARRIS: Her privacy privilege with her own doctors?
BECKER: Well, that can happen accidentally. Obviously, clearly, she would not have intended to do so. But if it's clear she's been telling people, I told my doctor blah-blah-blah, and my doctor advised me to do blah-blah-blah, if they can prove that happens, that's a waiver whether she likes it or not. I doubt that's what happened, but that would be a waiver, and that's certainly a strong argument. Maybe it wouldn't be a waiver with respect to everything and everyone, but it would at least be a partial waiver and perhaps a complete waiver of those records.
HARRIS: And that's interesting. So that could be something where she's not done, but some of her case it's just by her own talking to her own friends.
Let me ask you about something else, too. We only have a couple of minutes here, the idea that maybe the jury pool could be tainted, or polluted, if you will, by publicity, and pictures coming from this preliminary hearing. Will the judge make a call anytime soon on whether this hearing next week is going to be an open one?
BECKER: Oh, definitely, I think that will be today. Remember, Leon, he's already decided that no cameras, both still and live, are not allowed. And the issue is, can reporters go into that courtroom with pens and paper and report about it and put it on the Internet. He that is to decide that, because everyone needs to know.
I think he's going to allow the reporters in, because although, as the defense says, there is a risk that inadmissible evidence, remember, there will be inadmissible evidence allowed in at the hearing that is not allowed at the trial, and there's a risk that will come out, potential jurors will hear about it, and they'll walk into the trial and have their minds made up based on evidence they haven't heard.
But here, what's at stake here is just whether it appears in newspapers. I think the judge can to himself, look, as long as I haven't had cameras in there, if it appears in the newspaper, there will still be many people who don't know about it, because they haven't read it in the papers, so we'll be able to get a good jury.
On the other side of the coin, he's going to say, look, traditionally in Colorado, hearings like this have always been open to the press to come in and write about them, and the Constitution even says trials are public, which somewhat applies to hearings, so he's not going to want to go against that whole background, because he knows at the same time there won't be enough jury (UNINTELLIGIBLE). So he's going to let the press go in there with paper and pen, I predict.
HARRIS: All right then. To put you on the spot on the way out here, will we have a decision by what time this afternoon, what do you think?
BECKER: Well, it's about 9:20 in Colorado. I think we'll get it by 12:00 in Colorado. How about that?
HARRIS: All right, fine. We'll hold you to that. Appreciate it, Rob. Take care.
BECKER: Thank you.
HARRIS: We'll talk to you down the road. Rob Becker.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
