Hearsay When Kobe Bryant Faced

Hearsay

When Kobe Bryant faced rape charges, he was compelled to stand trial by virtue of a Colorado law that allowed the inclusion of hearsay in the preliminary hearing. However, the case was dismissed before going to trial (MSNBC, 2004). Had it gone to trial, the hearsay evidence would not have been admissible. Hearsay is defined as any testimony or documents that quote persons not in court (Legal Dictionary, 2009). The hearsay rule exists because attorneys do not have the opportunity to cross-examine persons not in court. Additionally, the trier of fact cannot judge first-hand the credibility of the first-hand witness.

Hearsay was a significant component of the Kobe Bryant rape case. In the preliminary hearing, the accuser did not take the stand, but instead her testimony was conducted by a detective in the case (Reuters, 2003). When the case was dismissed, it was because the accuser refused to testify. The detective's testimony was then hearsay, and could not be admitted, leaving the prosecution no choice but to drop the case.

There was also hearsay attesting to the sexual history of the alleged victim. Rape shield laws generally forbid such history from being entered into the courtroom, but in this case the evidence was going to be made admissible (MSNBC, 2004). This decision was upheld by Colorado Supreme Court. This was in response to hearsay evidence submitted by the prosecution. The prosecution had submitted a conclusory hearsay statement that a medical exam sixteen hours after the alleged rape had revealed minor injuries not consistent with consensual sex. Similar treatment was given to panties with blood on them that the plaintiff wore to the medical examination. The prosecution used hearsay to draw the conclusion that Mr. Bryant was the cause of the bleeding.

While such hearsay was allowed into the preliminary hearing under Colorado law, at trial this hearsay would not have been allowed. Prohibition against hearsay evidence is one of the oldest concepts in common law (Trachtenberg, 2009). Defendants are typically granted the right to cross-examine witnesses standing against them. Hearsay constitutes second-hand information. The first-hand witness therefore cannot be cross-examined, as they are not present in the court. The ability to cross-examine witnesses and challenge the prosecutions claims is central to the notion of a fair trial. Hearsay disrupts that fairness by providing a shield behind which witnesses and accusers can hide. It is to uphold the integrity of the defense, and to provide the accused with the opportunity for a fair trial, that hearsay evidence is generally prohibited.

There are exceptions, however, to the prohibition on hearsay evidence. These include the coconspirator exception; excited utterances; present tense impressions; and declarations of present state of mind. Statements made to a medical professional in the course of medical treatment also get an exception, except when those statements attribute fault. There are a few other exceptions, such as dying declarations, where the person make the statement is now deceased. Also, declarations against interest, prior testimony, admissions of guilt (confessions), and forfeiture by wrongdoing.

Some of these exceptions could have applied to the Kobe Bryant prosecution. The medical exam evidence could have been allowed had the alleged victim not placed fault on Mr. Bryant. The burden would then have been on the prosecution to prove Mr. Bryant's fault. However, the prosecution submitted a conclusory statement with regards to the findings at the medical exam. Had they not done so, an exception to the hearsay evidence would have been made.

Another exception that may have been available to the prosecution was forfeiture by wrongdoing. In this case, the high profile of the trial was a consideration in the plaintiff not wanting to proceed with the trial. The accuser was going to be subject to humiliation with respect to her sexual history, before an international media spotlight. Indeed, the prosecution moved midway through the preliminary hearing to have the remainder of the hearing closed for this reason. The defense argued that the hearing should remain open. The argument could have been made that this situation constituted wrongdoing on the part of the defense. However, the defense had originally requested a closed hearing, which effectively eliminated the potential for obtaining an exception on the use of hearsay based on wrongdoing.