Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Interview With Pam Stuart
Aired December 19, 2003 - 13:30 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.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: NBA star Kobe Bryant is in Eagle, Colorado, for a pretrial hearing in his sexual assault case. Bryant is accused of attacking a 19-year-old hotle worker in late June. The key issues at today's hearing, the admissibility of the medical and mental health records of the accuser. Also, whether Colorado's rape shield law should be lifted from this case.
Joining me now from Washington, trial attorney and former federal prosecutor Pam Stuart. Pam, Good to see you.
PAM STuart, ATTORNEY: Nice to see you.
PHILLIPS: What do you think about the medical history being used here to make a case and be used as evidence against this woman?
STUART: Well, remember, the key issues in a rape case are whether or not this particular sexual act, which Mr. Bryant has admitted, was done with the consent of the victim.
And so the defense would like to bring in all sorts of peripheral issues, like her mental status, whether or not she was able to consent and whether she could even understand she was consenting at the time of the particular alleged offense.
So they would like to get a hold of her medical records, which apparently have some mental health issues in them. Most state, and Colorado's included, protect mental health records very, very carefully, as any medical records.
And it is in my judgment, unless the defense can show a direct relevance to what happened in that hotel room, it's unlikely they will be released.
PHILLIPS: Now, doesn't this 19-year-old though, have to say to her doctor, you can release these, before they are even able to get into the hands of lawyers?
STUART: Yes, in general. But in a -- in a case where one puts one's own mental health at issue -- and that would not be the case here -- they can be released without that person's consent. But you are absolutely correct in most cases, consent is required.
PHILLIPS: I also see the defense wants to access notes taken during an interview of a woman -- or of a worker that was -- was dealing with the accuser here, at a rape victims advocacy group. What do the laws say about confidentiality in this respect? And could these notes be administered in court? STUART: Well, they're probably not admissible in court. They might be able to be used as what we call impeachment material.
Now at issue would be whether or not the interview was conducted with the agreement -- or under the direction of the prosecutors, in which case, that would be what we call work product and would not be released to the defense.
But if it were just an interview it might -- and not in connection with what the prosecutors were doing -- it might be possible for the defense to obtain those notes, but only if the interviewer were a prosecution witness, and only if probably, that witness were to be testifying at trial.
So in general, I would say they would not be released.
PHILLIPS: How do you think defense attorneys will try and convince the judge that these other details within her medical history can be used as evidence? I mean, do you see a way that it could happen? What would you say? How would you go up against the judge?
STUART: Well, you're not going up against the judge, you're really going up against the prosecutor. But what the defense is trying to do is to put the victim's mental state in issue. In other words, to say that her statement that she did not consent to the sex is not reliable because of her personal history and her mental health history.
And I think that is a very tough case to make. It is a well- known phenomenon, and certainly in the law, that you take your victim as you find them. And if the particular victim in question happens to have a mental condition, that's something that is there and unless it really affected her ability to consent, or her perception that she was consenting, in other words, her ability to inform and relate to a jury, whether or not she was consenting to the sex, I believe it is not relevant, and will not be produced to the defense.
PHILLIPS: All right. Let's see if, indeed that happens. We're going to follow what happens today. Pam, I appreciate your time. Hopefully you'll come back, we'll talk about it once a decision is made.
STUART: OK.
PHILLIPS: All right, Pam Stuart, thanks.
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 December 19, 2003 - 13:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: NBA star Kobe Bryant is in Eagle, Colorado, for a pretrial hearing in his sexual assault case. Bryant is accused of attacking a 19-year-old hotle worker in late June. The key issues at today's hearing, the admissibility of the medical and mental health records of the accuser. Also, whether Colorado's rape shield law should be lifted from this case.
Joining me now from Washington, trial attorney and former federal prosecutor Pam Stuart. Pam, Good to see you.
PAM STuart, ATTORNEY: Nice to see you.
PHILLIPS: What do you think about the medical history being used here to make a case and be used as evidence against this woman?
STUART: Well, remember, the key issues in a rape case are whether or not this particular sexual act, which Mr. Bryant has admitted, was done with the consent of the victim.
And so the defense would like to bring in all sorts of peripheral issues, like her mental status, whether or not she was able to consent and whether she could even understand she was consenting at the time of the particular alleged offense.
So they would like to get a hold of her medical records, which apparently have some mental health issues in them. Most state, and Colorado's included, protect mental health records very, very carefully, as any medical records.
And it is in my judgment, unless the defense can show a direct relevance to what happened in that hotel room, it's unlikely they will be released.
PHILLIPS: Now, doesn't this 19-year-old though, have to say to her doctor, you can release these, before they are even able to get into the hands of lawyers?
STUART: Yes, in general. But in a -- in a case where one puts one's own mental health at issue -- and that would not be the case here -- they can be released without that person's consent. But you are absolutely correct in most cases, consent is required.
PHILLIPS: I also see the defense wants to access notes taken during an interview of a woman -- or of a worker that was -- was dealing with the accuser here, at a rape victims advocacy group. What do the laws say about confidentiality in this respect? And could these notes be administered in court? STUART: Well, they're probably not admissible in court. They might be able to be used as what we call impeachment material.
Now at issue would be whether or not the interview was conducted with the agreement -- or under the direction of the prosecutors, in which case, that would be what we call work product and would not be released to the defense.
But if it were just an interview it might -- and not in connection with what the prosecutors were doing -- it might be possible for the defense to obtain those notes, but only if the interviewer were a prosecution witness, and only if probably, that witness were to be testifying at trial.
So in general, I would say they would not be released.
PHILLIPS: How do you think defense attorneys will try and convince the judge that these other details within her medical history can be used as evidence? I mean, do you see a way that it could happen? What would you say? How would you go up against the judge?
STUART: Well, you're not going up against the judge, you're really going up against the prosecutor. But what the defense is trying to do is to put the victim's mental state in issue. In other words, to say that her statement that she did not consent to the sex is not reliable because of her personal history and her mental health history.
And I think that is a very tough case to make. It is a well- known phenomenon, and certainly in the law, that you take your victim as you find them. And if the particular victim in question happens to have a mental condition, that's something that is there and unless it really affected her ability to consent, or her perception that she was consenting, in other words, her ability to inform and relate to a jury, whether or not she was consenting to the sex, I believe it is not relevant, and will not be produced to the defense.
PHILLIPS: All right. Let's see if, indeed that happens. We're going to follow what happens today. Pam, I appreciate your time. Hopefully you'll come back, we'll talk about it once a decision is made.
STUART: OK.
PHILLIPS: All right, Pam Stuart, thanks.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
