In most cases of sexual assault, the act of molestation is very much private in nature, which means that only the two of them, the accused and the accuser, were present during the commission of the crime; unless there was someone else who must have actually witnessed the alleged rape. Hence, without the direct witnesses, the prosecution merely resorts to the gathering and collating of circumstantial evidence which could possibly prove that the felony was indeed committed and that the accused actually did the crime. On the part of the defense, it will put up a case by damaging the accuser’s reputation, which is a sort of character assassination. This is exactly what happened in Kobe Bryant’s case.
The bellman of the hotel, with whom the accuser confided, declared that she told him that Kobe Bryant sexually molested her. Under the Rules of Evidence, the testimony of the accuser’s friend against Kobe was purely hearsay and circumstantial. Hence, it should pass the hearsay evidence test. In the first place, the bellman did not actually see what happened during the alleged act of rape. All that he knew were the circumstances after the sexual act took place. Nonetheless, what is most surprising about this case was the fact that the accuser refused to testify during the hearing. This was unprecedented. How in the world would someone file a criminal case, but refused to testify and be confronted by the accused? People will not hesitate to think that all the accusations were merely concocted, self-serving, and farce. If she was really sexually molested, she should have pushed through with her case against Kobe until the judgment day, so that she could clearly prove that Bryant transgressed her chastity.
The accuser’s statements before the police officers were so mixed up that instead of working in her favor, her declarations rallied for the reinforcement of the defense position. As a result, the culpability of the accused became dubious. The defense, on the other hand, had proven the accuser’s promiscuity for having sex with different partners after her sexual encounter with Kobe. In fact, Bryant’s defense lawyer insisted that the “vaginal injuries to the accuser were caused not by rape but by her having sex with three men in three days” (theage.com.au, par. 18). Another newspaper report said, “Newly released court papers in the rape case against Kobe Bryant suggest that his accuser had sex with a second man not long after her encounter with Mr. Bryant” (nytimes.com, par. 1).
It was also revealed during the preliminary conference that “the police detective, responding to questions from Mackey, also conceded that nurses who examined Bryant after he was accused of rape did not find bruises or scratches on him that would be consistent with a woman trying to fight him off” (theage.com.au, par. 22). The accuser’s declaration that she tried to fend off Kobe’s sexual advances was not consistent with the material evidence that was gathered from the crime scene. If her statements were true, the fact that she said she defended herself, Kobe would have suffered bruises too. However, evidence spoke out that injuries were never found on Bryant’s body. So, what then could be concluded from the evidence? The accuser’s sexual congress with Kobe Bryant was purely consensual. Contrary to the prosecution’s accusations, it was not a sexual assault by force, but it was a casual sexual tryst. It is believed, then, that Kobe Bryant is not guilty of the crime of sexual assault.
References
Liptak, A. (2004, August 04). Papers Reveal New Details In Kobe Bryant Rape Case. Retrieved April 08, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/us/papers-reveal-new-details-in-kobe-bryant-rape-case.html?_r=0
"Rape Evidence against Kobe Bryant Revealed." Rape Evidence against Kobe Bryant Revealed. 17 Oct. 2003. Web. 08 Apr. 2016. <http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/16/1065917526371.html?from=storyrhs>.
