I'm not a lawyer -- though I play one on TV -- but Dana Easter, the DA who was until recently prosecuting Kobe Bryant for rape, has made what I consider to be inappropriate comments.
A prosecutor in the Kobe Bryant (search) case said there was solid evidence that the NBA star raped his 20-year-old accuser, but officials were forced to drop charges after the woman grew "physically ill" from stress and pulled out of the case. ...It may very well be that Bryant raped this unnamed woman, but it's highly inappropriate for the DA to attempt to punish him through these announcements using alleged facts that haven't been proven to any jury. That's what courts are for, and if the DA couldn't prosecute and win then using her position to publicly denounce Bryant is a perversion of justice.Had the case gone to trial, Easter said, prosecutors could have proved the woman had been raped based on her "battering ram" injuries, Bryant's statement to investigators and the statements of three people who saw her after the alleged assault.
"It was a physically violent assault. It was a very degrading assault. It was clearly perpetrated by someone who thought he was entitled," said Easter. ...
"We really believed in her and we still do. I can't emphasize that enough," Easter said.
Why? Anyone with an informed opinion has a right to express that opinion. If the result is to make Kobe look bad, well, maybe he should have thought about that before he raped her. And if he didn't, he should sue the D.A. for slander.
I'm with Michael on this. Once a prosecutor doesn't have a case, regardless of the cause, I think they should just step quietly away, as the prosecutor represents the state, not the alleged victim. The alleged victim can have her day in civil court and her attorneys can make their case.
It seems to me that, while it might me inferred that she's referring to Kobe, she only states that the assualt was very violent and degrading. It seems only intended to remind the public that a violent crime did occur - and that just because the charges were dropped against Bryant, a rape still occurred.
Or am I being to naive in believing this is what she meant? I typically go out of my way to believe the better of two scenarios...
Barry: Uh, so she's saying that the sexual encounter was a rape, but that the perpetrator may not have been Bryant? That doesn't make any sense, because Bryant has already admitted to having sex with the woman.
No, I'm saying that now the trial is over and charges were dropped, people might forget she was ever even assaulted - or think she made it up entirely.
I just don't feel this can be interpreted as an attemp to "punish" Kobe outside of trial.
They have a rule on this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/co/code/CO_CODE.HTM#Rule_3.8
I think this comes under 3.8(e) which points to 3.6(a). It seems that she is within the rule, because there is no likelihood that her statements will affect an adjudicative proceeding.
That's not to deny that her statements were kinda mean. But FWIW, they aren't actionable under the ethical rules for Colorado attorneys.
BB: Oh sure, I just think they're inappropriate. She's clearly using the publicity of her office to sway the public against Bryant. That's not what the people of Colorado hired her to do.
Procecutors are by and large immune from suit for things they say outside court about defendants. But the key words here are "by and large." Bryant's attorney should fire off a quick letter and let the DA know that she's getting very close to the edge. Kobe has enough $$$ to make her life hell on earth even if he would eventually be unsuccessful in such a lawsuit.