ducks
09-03-2004, 03:25 PM
Civil Case Looms, But Is a Deal In the Works?
With Bryant charge dropped, door may open to settlement
By Paul Nussbaum, Inquirer Staff Writer
EAGLE, Colo. - Is a deal in the works?
The collapse of the criminal case against Kobe Bryant leaves the NBA superstar still facing a civil suit by the woman who accused him of raping her, with the same disputed facts and the same incendiary mix of money, sex and fame.
The civil suit, filed last month in U.S. District Court in Denver, requires the woman to meet a less demanding standard of proof than in a criminal case. But it could subject her to exactly the kinds of personal questions and media exposure that she hoped to avoid by refusing to testify in the criminal case.
On Wednesday, the criminal sexual-assault charge against Bryant, the Los Angeles Lakers star and former Lower Merion High School standout, was dismissed by District Judge Terry Ruckriegle at the request of the local district attorney.
That dismissal, and an apology issued by Bryant immediately afterward, prompted speculation that a settlement of the civil case was pending. The woman is seeking unspecified financial damages in the civil suit.
In his written apology, issued through his attorneys, Bryant seemed to fuel the speculation by saying: "I understand the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident... ."
"I've never seen anything like his statement in a case like this," said Karen Steinhauser, a former prosecutor who is a University of Denver law professor. "His statement means to me there is something else going on behind the scenes.
"I'd be shocked if it went to trial. My gut feeling is there will be a settlement."
The woman's local attorney, John Clune, said in court Wednesday that the civil case would proceed and that no settlement had been discussed. Neither Clune nor L. Lin Wood, the high-profile Atlanta libel lawyer who joined the woman's legal team in July, could be reached for comment yesterday.
"The smart money would suggest a confidential settlement," said Craig Silverman, a defense lawyer and former prosecutor in Denver. "But I don't think it's imminent." He said the strategy for how to proceed with the civil case "becomes a business decision for Wood and Clune. It's expensive to put together this kind of litigation."
Colorado law limits the amount of money that can be awarded for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, to about $360,000, or in egregious cases to about $750,000. But there is no cap on economic damages, and Silverman said lawyers could seek millions of dollars by arguing that a rape victim's future earning power was seriously diminished by physical or psychological effects of the assault.
In a civil lawsuit, the woman would not have to persuade a jury of her case "beyond a reasonable doubt," as she would have in the criminal trial. She would have to convince a jury only that the "preponderance of the evidence" supported her case, that is, that she was more right than wrong.
"But it's still a he-said-she-said case," Silverman said.
In a civil lawsuit, both Bryant and his accuser could face questions that were off-limits in the criminal case.
Bryant would not have had to testify in a criminal case, but in a civil suit, the woman's attorneys could ask to interview him under oath about many things, including his sexual history. And the woman could be asked about issues deemed not relevant in the criminal trial, such as her psychiatric history or drug use.
The federal rape-shield law, rather than Colorado's shield law, would apply in the civil case, and that could work to the woman's advantage, said Michelle J. Anderson, a Villanova University law school professor who is an expert on rape law. Rape-shield laws are designed to limit questions about a rape victim's sexual history.
The federal law "is a stronger rape-shield law - it bars evidence [of past sexual activity] with narrow exceptions," Anderson said.
The accuser's history became a key element in the criminal case, as defense attorneys were permitted to use evidence about the woman's sexual activity in the three days before she was examined at a hospital the day after the encounter with Bryant.
A DNA expert for Bryant contended that the woman had sex with someone other than Bryant in the 15 hours between the alleged rape and the medical exam, a contention the woman's attorneys denied. And sperm and semen from a man other than Bryant were found on the underwear she wore to the exam.
"The crucial element is the sexual history," Anderson said. "The evidence for the prosecution was not weak. The rape-shield law was weak. It did not protect the complainant as I believe it should have. That's why the criminal case was deemed weak."
If the woman is required to answer the same kinds of questions about her personal life in the civil case as in the criminal case, she will probably balk at going forward, legal observers said.
"I predict there will be a confidential settlement," said Perry Binder, a professor of legal studies at Georgia State University, "because I think it's inconsistent that she would say she doesn't want to testify in a criminal case but is willing to give a deposition in a civil action."
With the same kind of media scrutiny and legal probing as in the criminal case, the woman would probably reach the same decision - not to go through it, Silverman said.
"You have to wonder, if she's unwilling to testify before a jury in September, why would she be willing to do so at some later date?"
Contact staff writer Paul Nussbaum at 215-854-4587 or [email protected].
With Bryant charge dropped, door may open to settlement
By Paul Nussbaum, Inquirer Staff Writer
EAGLE, Colo. - Is a deal in the works?
The collapse of the criminal case against Kobe Bryant leaves the NBA superstar still facing a civil suit by the woman who accused him of raping her, with the same disputed facts and the same incendiary mix of money, sex and fame.
The civil suit, filed last month in U.S. District Court in Denver, requires the woman to meet a less demanding standard of proof than in a criminal case. But it could subject her to exactly the kinds of personal questions and media exposure that she hoped to avoid by refusing to testify in the criminal case.
On Wednesday, the criminal sexual-assault charge against Bryant, the Los Angeles Lakers star and former Lower Merion High School standout, was dismissed by District Judge Terry Ruckriegle at the request of the local district attorney.
That dismissal, and an apology issued by Bryant immediately afterward, prompted speculation that a settlement of the civil case was pending. The woman is seeking unspecified financial damages in the civil suit.
In his written apology, issued through his attorneys, Bryant seemed to fuel the speculation by saying: "I understand the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident... ."
"I've never seen anything like his statement in a case like this," said Karen Steinhauser, a former prosecutor who is a University of Denver law professor. "His statement means to me there is something else going on behind the scenes.
"I'd be shocked if it went to trial. My gut feeling is there will be a settlement."
The woman's local attorney, John Clune, said in court Wednesday that the civil case would proceed and that no settlement had been discussed. Neither Clune nor L. Lin Wood, the high-profile Atlanta libel lawyer who joined the woman's legal team in July, could be reached for comment yesterday.
"The smart money would suggest a confidential settlement," said Craig Silverman, a defense lawyer and former prosecutor in Denver. "But I don't think it's imminent." He said the strategy for how to proceed with the civil case "becomes a business decision for Wood and Clune. It's expensive to put together this kind of litigation."
Colorado law limits the amount of money that can be awarded for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, to about $360,000, or in egregious cases to about $750,000. But there is no cap on economic damages, and Silverman said lawyers could seek millions of dollars by arguing that a rape victim's future earning power was seriously diminished by physical or psychological effects of the assault.
In a civil lawsuit, the woman would not have to persuade a jury of her case "beyond a reasonable doubt," as she would have in the criminal trial. She would have to convince a jury only that the "preponderance of the evidence" supported her case, that is, that she was more right than wrong.
"But it's still a he-said-she-said case," Silverman said.
In a civil lawsuit, both Bryant and his accuser could face questions that were off-limits in the criminal case.
Bryant would not have had to testify in a criminal case, but in a civil suit, the woman's attorneys could ask to interview him under oath about many things, including his sexual history. And the woman could be asked about issues deemed not relevant in the criminal trial, such as her psychiatric history or drug use.
The federal rape-shield law, rather than Colorado's shield law, would apply in the civil case, and that could work to the woman's advantage, said Michelle J. Anderson, a Villanova University law school professor who is an expert on rape law. Rape-shield laws are designed to limit questions about a rape victim's sexual history.
The federal law "is a stronger rape-shield law - it bars evidence [of past sexual activity] with narrow exceptions," Anderson said.
The accuser's history became a key element in the criminal case, as defense attorneys were permitted to use evidence about the woman's sexual activity in the three days before she was examined at a hospital the day after the encounter with Bryant.
A DNA expert for Bryant contended that the woman had sex with someone other than Bryant in the 15 hours between the alleged rape and the medical exam, a contention the woman's attorneys denied. And sperm and semen from a man other than Bryant were found on the underwear she wore to the exam.
"The crucial element is the sexual history," Anderson said. "The evidence for the prosecution was not weak. The rape-shield law was weak. It did not protect the complainant as I believe it should have. That's why the criminal case was deemed weak."
If the woman is required to answer the same kinds of questions about her personal life in the civil case as in the criminal case, she will probably balk at going forward, legal observers said.
"I predict there will be a confidential settlement," said Perry Binder, a professor of legal studies at Georgia State University, "because I think it's inconsistent that she would say she doesn't want to testify in a criminal case but is willing to give a deposition in a civil action."
With the same kind of media scrutiny and legal probing as in the criminal case, the woman would probably reach the same decision - not to go through it, Silverman said.
"You have to wonder, if she's unwilling to testify before a jury in September, why would she be willing to do so at some later date?"
Contact staff writer Paul Nussbaum at 215-854-4587 or [email protected].