Bryant Trial: The criminal case against Kobe Bryant was dropped last week, not unexpectedly. All he had to do was go through the motions of an apology. The civil case will continue until the victim settles for an undisclosed amount of money and drops the suit. Does this mean the alleged victim was lying? Does it mean she is only interested in money? Or does it mean that the mistakes of the court proved too much for the prosecution's case to bear? No one knows for sure.



Interesting articles about this:

New York Times - legal failures?

Houston Chronicle - too much legal secrecy?

FindLaw - why did the alleged victim stop cooperating?



In the end, it should surprise no one that Bryant will not spend a day in jail. I do not know if he committed any crimes. I do know that it would have been impossible for there to be a fair trial. His celebrity would have saved him, or the media circus would have convicted him before a jury was even empaneled. This is the real lesson of the Bryant case and the real problem facing our legal system when it comes to high profile defendants.



Yes, the 1st Amendment right of the press should be protected, but only by keeping the media circus out of the courtroom can justice truly be served. Yes, the media should be able to observe all trials. And yes, the public does have a right to know. But the public does not have the right to a play-by-play, no matter how much this may boost ratings. The increasing media presence in these high-profile cases prevents the effective administration of justice. Did the clerk err in releasing the alleged victim's name? Yes. But who published it? Who sought it? The irony comes when the media, largely responsible for creating this injustice, later complains when a defendant such as Bryant escapes trial or conviction. Only by limiting media access to observers and representatives can the legal process continue, uninhibited by ratings and talking heads.

Posted in: