LEGAL HEADLINES AND MORE

After going on in the last post how I think the prosecution will drop their case against Kobe Bryant, saw an article in the August 9, 2004 Sports Illustrated that makes me a little less certain. According to the article, in the Scoreboard section and written by Jeff Benedict, the prosecution intends to subpoena a 22 year old Florida woman who had an alleged run-in with Bryant at the Orlando, Florida home of Shaquille O'Neal in November of 2002. The Lakers were playing the Orlando Magic and Shaq was hosting a team party at his 26,000 square foot home in Orlando. The woman was an employee of the Orlando Planet Hollywood restuarant that was staffing the party. She alleges that Bryant approached her and asked for her cell phone number, which she gave to him. Later, he asked her to get him a soft drink and bring it to him outside. When she did, she alleges Bryant cornered her and groped her private parts. She claims Bryant laughed as she pushed him away and retreated inside. The next day the woman got a call from an "associate" of Bryant's who apologized for Bryant's behavior. [Very classy - cell phone apology from a hanger-on]. The woman didn't report the incident to the police. But afer seeing Bryant's news conference in July of 2003 in which he claimed "I didn't force her to do anything against her will..." she called the Colorado prosecutors and told her story. The Florida woman has apparently had second thoughts about testifying after observing how Bryant's accuser has been treated. The prosecution however, has apparently subpoeaned her. That presents a bit of a problem for Bryant. If he doesn't testify he can't say what happened in Colorado was consensual. If he does testify however, the judge may allow the State to call the Florida woman as a rebuttal witness to testify as to a similar occurrence. And I heard today the State may just put the case on and see where what happens...

And according to the Drudge Report, an Army National Guard reservist has taken the highly unusual step of filing suit to assert that the Government can't prevent National Guard Reservists from leaving military duty when their enlistment period ends. The reservist, who is married with two children, is seeking release from the Army when his term ends in December. The case is pending in Northern California and the Army has yet to respond....

And as long as we are touching on politics, glad to see Senator Harkin firing back at Vice President Cheney yesterday. Cheney, our president's attack dog, had mocked Senator Kerry after Kerry had remarked he would fight a more "sensitive" war on terror. Harkin in effect said that Cheney, who received 5 separate deferments during Viet Nam because he had "different priorities" was a coward for staying home during Viet Nam, and should shut the hell up. About time somebody pointed out the hypocrisy of all these chicken hawk suggesting Kerry isn't tough...

Tort Reform News...

Saw a reprint of an August 1, 2004 LA Times article discussing the merits of caps on damages in med mal cases. The article was written by Lisa Girion. The article discussed the difficulty victims of malpractice have in getting legal representation due to the $250,000 limit on non economic damages such as pain and suffering. A number of politicians, including President Bush, have embraced the reforms in California as a national model for tort reform. Supporters argue that since the caps took effect, insurance rates have risen less than half the national average. But what they don't mention that there has been no decline in the number of cases filed. So in California, at least, caps on damages doesn't translate to a reduction in lawsuit filing.