"1" <1@1.com> wrote All I know is that the DA better have something or he is in for a countersuit...

Actually, that was probably taken care of by the probable cause hearing and
his immunity from suit.
Kobe could have alleged that the prosecution was selective, malicious,
vindictive or whatever, against the Sheriff's office, or the DA's office
until a judge signed off on it.
If he is found not-guilty, he probably doesn't have much recourse to the DA,
only to the County as a whole. As there was probable cause to think a felony
has been committed and he did it, the prosecution may fail for no culpable
reason.
Of course, he can sue the accuser- however the burden of proof would be on
him to prove his innocence, not just being found 'not-guilty'.
Of course she could sue him under the theory that the preponderance of
evidence proves a damaging act, as contrasted with needing only a reasonable
doubt to satisfy criminal conviction.
There's enough law to go around.

Chas

Chas wrote:
"1" <1@1.com> wrote All I know is that the DA better have something or he is in for a countersuit... Actually, that was probably taken care of by the probable cause hearing and his immunity from suit.

I don't think so....

A malicious prosecution suit against the county might very well
succeed.

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F95AFB3.C0A11D@sprintmail.com... Chas wrote: "1" <1@1.com> wrote All I know is that the DA better have something or he is in for a countersuit... Actually, that was probably taken care of by the probable cause hearing
and his immunity from suit. I don't think so.... A malicious prosecution suit against the county might very well succeed.

Ah, the armchair lawyer has committed malpractice again. Artie, haven't
you ever heard of governmental immunity from lawsuit? People just can't go
suing their district attorney or county for a prosecution they don't like.
The usual remedy there is at the ballot box, next election. Cite the
caselaw or statute if you have proof otherwise.

Larry Smith wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:3F95AFB3.C0A11D@sprintmail.com... Chas wrote: "1" <1@1.com> wrote > All I know is that the DA better have something or he is in for a > countersuit... Actually, that was probably taken care of by the probable cause hearing and his immunity from suit. I don't think so.... A malicious prosecution suit against the county might very well succeed. Ah, the armchair lawyer has committed malpractice again. Artie, haven't you ever heard of governmental immunity from lawsuit?

A finding in the preliminary hearing that the prosecution has presented
evidence which, if it were credible, would be sufficient for probable
cause (essentially what the judge said) does not mean that the
prosecution has evidence which, even if found credible, would
prove the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". THAT
is the PROPER standard for malicious prosecution, if the
prosecution decides to bring the case to trial. I don't know
whether it's the legal standard.

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote....THAT is the PROPER standard for malicious prosecution, if the prosecution decides to bring the case to trial. I don't know whether it's the legal standard.

'Malicious' prosecution implies (wait for it) 'malice'.
There has to be an extra legal reason, a malicious reason, driving an abuse
of process under color of authority.
It doesn't mean that you can't prosecute someone and enjoy it. It means that
you can't abuse the power of office to pervert the process inappropriately.
Eagle County *wishes* they could unass Kobe Bryant. They'd love to never see
him again.
Except that there keeps being probable cause to go forward.
The Sheriff found probable cause; the warrant judge found probable cause;
the DA found probable cause, the reviewing legal experts from all over the
State found probable cause; the present judge held a probable cause hearing
and found probable cause.
Hard to envision a malicious prosecution that would survive that much
vetting.

Chas

Chas wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote....THAT is the PROPER standard for malicious prosecution, if the prosecution decides to bring the case to trial. I don't know whether it's the legal standard. 'Malicious' prosecution implies (wait for it) 'malice'. There has to be an extra legal reason, a malicious reason, driving an abuse of process under color of authority.

Actually, that's not accurate. If it is clear TO THE PROSECUTION
that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, then no specific
"malicious reason" is required to deduce malice.

....
Except that there keeps being probable cause to go forward. The Sheriff found probable cause; the warrant judge found probable cause; the DA found probable cause, the reviewing legal experts from all over the State found probable cause; the present judge held a probable cause hearing and found probable cause.

The present judge found probable cause IF the prosecution's
evidence is believable. At a preliminary hearing, he's not allowed
to SAY that the evidence isn't believable, or even to speculate
whether some of it might not be admissible at the trial.