Katelyn Faber
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Katelyn Kristine Faber (born June 18, 1985 in Colorado) is a woman who accused NBA star player Kobe Bryant of rape in July 2003. Under the Colorado state rape shield law, her name was not disclosed by the court until after the case was dismissed in September 2004. She was the complaining witness in People of the State of Colorado v. Kobe Bryant.[1] The case created additional controversy when radio talk show host, Tom Leykis, chose to break with convention by publicly releasing her name.
Faber attended high school at Eagle Valley High School (Gypsum, Colorado) and studied for one year at the University of Northern Colorado. She was an employee of The Lodge and Spa at Cordillera, a 5-star hotel in Edwards, Colorado where Bryant was staying the night before his knee surgery to repair an injury from the 2002-03 NBA season. Faber alleged that Bryant sexually assaulted her in his hotel room.
Contents |
[edit] Fallout
Faber was the recipient of several death threats from Bryant supporters [2]. On August 20, 2003 John Roche, an Iowa resident was indicted for leaving an intimidating message on Faber's answering machine. He was apprehended by FBI agents and officers of the Iowa City Police Department. The FBI made a statement regarding his capture: "This type of behavior is repugnant to the spirit of dignity and fairness that underlies the judicial process." Roche was sentenced to four months in prison. [3] Patrick Graber (31 at the time), a Swiss bodybuilder, allegedly solicited Bryant. According to law enforcement authorities, Graber claimed to have ties to the Russian Mob. Graber allegedly offered to murder Faber for three million US dollars. Apprehended on September 18, 2003 during an FBI sting, Graber was originally charged with solicitation to commit murder and solicitation to dissuade a witness, which could have earned a 15 year prison sentence. On April 19, 2004, Graber pleaded no contest to a single count of grand theft, and was sentenced to three years in prison, July 20, 2004 [1].
[edit] Disclosure of Faber's name
Although traditionally, mainstream news media outlets have refused to divulge the names of alleged rape victims, because of the high profile of the Bryant case, her name quickly became known and widely circulated on the Internet. Her Eagle, Colorado address and various photographs were also distributed online and were quickly corroborated by a reporter in Colorado on July 18, 2003. The online newspaper Binary Report printed her name, address, email, home phone, satellite photo, and photo on its front page. By July 21, 2003 the news that her identity had been leaked became widespread. From this information several mainstream newspapers and magazines including the New York Post[4], Newsweek [5], and The Globe ran detailed stories on the issue. On September 16, 2003, the office of the Colorado's Office of the State Court Administrator accidentally posted a document on their website which listed her name and address; the document was retracted within an hour and placed online again with the information blacked out. [6]
Rape victims' advocacy groups claimed that the release of Faber's name, which has generated significant controversy within the news media, was an intimidation tactic on the part of the Bryant defense. However, skeptics have suggested that her accusations were designed simply as a publicity stunt or an attempt to earn a substantial financial settlement, and complained that the traditional (albeit informal) protection afforded rape victims is unfair because it denies the defendant the right to publicly confront his or her accuser.
On August 9, 2004, Faber's attorneys claimed that the judge should remove the gag order on all participants in the case, on the grounds that inadvertent releases of court documents showing the woman's name and sexual history had allowed "one side of the story" to be told. The judge refused. The following day, her attorneys filed a civil suit against Bryant, asking for a jury trial, at least $75,000 in compensatory damages and an undisclosed amount in punitive damages. Damages for pain and suffering and other non-economic losses in Colorado civil cases generally cannot exceed $733,000. Punitive damages cannot exceed the compensatory award and can be given only if the allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Colorado prosecutor spokesperson Krista Flannigan said that the lawsuit had no bearing on the criminal trial, which was still under way. Bryant's attorneys had no comment.
[edit] Criminal trial
The trial began with a series of pretrial hearings. Bryant's lawyers were aggressive in their defense, and attempted to obtain Faber's medical records, to admit evidence on her sexual history, and to force her to testify at trial when the prosecution claimed that previously recorded statements and other evidence were sufficient. The prosecution countered with accusations that the defense had made a "conscious misrepresentation of the evidence in order to smear the victim publicly". The judge angrily likened Pamela Mackey (Bryant's defense attorney) to a dog in need of a muzzle after Mackey stated Faber's full name in open court six times after being ordered by Judge Frederick Gannett not to do so.
On September 1, 2004, the criminal complaint against Kobe Bryant was dismissed, after Faber decided not to testify. The criminal case against him cannot be retried in the future because of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's protection against double jeopardy (jeopardy attaches to a criminal case once the first witness is sworn). As a result, Kobe Bryant is no longer a criminal defendant.
After the criminal complaint was dropped, Kobe Bryant issued a statement read by his attorney: "Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way that I did." The statement references an agreement that the statement cannot be used in the civil case.
[edit] Civil trial
On October 6, 2004, with regard to the civil trial of the accuser against Kobe Bryant, a federal judge rejected a request from Faber to remain anonymous during the proceedings. The judge ruled that the public's interest in open court proceedings outweighed the accuser's desire to shield her identity. In the decision, U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch said, "The parties appear as equals before the court and that fundamental principle must be protected throughout these proceedings." [7]
On October 14, 2004, the accuser re-filed her sexual lawsuit against Bryant, using her real name, Katelyn Faber.
On or around March 2, 2005, Faber and Bryant settled their lawsuit. Some media sources speculated that Bryant settled the lawsuit in order to avoid having to testify under oath. In Colorado, as in California, a party who files a civil lawsuit (whether in State or Federal Court) is allowed to take the testimony of the other party (whether they be a defendant or a plaintiff in the lawsuit). The process is commonly referred to as a deposition. The testimony taken at a deposition is taken under oath and the party being deposed is sworn to tell the truth. Moreover, the deposition testimony is transcribed by a licensed court reporter and the transcript of Bryant's deposition would have been a coveted news and gossip item. Just as media sources had speculated that the criminal case was dropped by the prosecution due to Faber's reluctance to expose the various details of her personal life, many media sources also speculated that Bryant had decided to settle the civil case out of court so that the details of his own personal life would not be made public. Had he been forced to testify under oath, it would have been likely that Bryant would have been questioned about the previous affair that he had with a woman named Michelle [8], and any explicit details of his personal sex life that Faber's attorneys deemed significant.
Because the Colorado criminal charges against Kobe Bryant were dropped he would not have been able to appeal to the Fifth Amendment during his deposition, and would have been forced to answer all questions pertaining to the event. Refusal to answer questions at a deposition is a serious offense which can be punished by Court evidentiary and monetary sanctions.
