## Facts

- A criminal prosecution in Colorado involved allegations of sexual assault against Kobe Bryant.
- Under Colorado’s rape-shield statute, the trial court conducted in camera hearings to decide the relevancy and materiality of proposed evidence concerning the complainant’s prior or subsequent sexual conduct.
- The transcripts of those closed rape-shield hearings were mistakenly emailed by a court reporter to several media organizations using a distribution list for public transcripts.
- The trial court, after discovering the mistake, ordered the media recipients not to publish or disclose the transcripts’ contents and to delete and destroy all copies.
- Media entities filed an original proceeding in the Colorado Supreme Court, arguing the trial court’s order was an unconstitutional prior restraint; the State intervened to defend the order.

## Issues

1. Whether an order barring publication and requiring destruction of inadvertently disclosed in camera rape-shield transcripts constitutes a prior restraint.
2. Whether protecting rape-shield confidentiality, victim privacy, and related fair-trial interests can justify restraining publication of the mistakenly disclosed material.
3. What remedy, if any, is narrowly tailored to protect statutory rape-shield interests while respecting constitutional press freedoms.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court held the trial court’s order was a prior restraint because it prohibited publication in advance and required destruction of materials already received.
- The Court ruled the blanket nonpublication/destruction directive was overbroad under strict scrutiny.
- The Court granted relief in part and directed a narrower approach: the trial court must determine which transcript portions are relevant and admissible under the rape-shield statute, release a redacted transcript of those portions, and keep the remaining irrelevant/inadmissible sexual-history material confidential.

## Legal Principles

- Prior restraints on speech and publication are presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny.
- A restraint on publication may be permissible only to serve an interest of the highest order and must be narrowly tailored.
- Rape-shield statutes protect both evidentiary fairness and victim privacy; in camera procedures serve to screen out irrelevant or inadmissible sexual-history evidence and preserve confidentiality for material that will not become part of the public record.
- An inadvertent governmental disclosure of confidential, statutorily protected judicial materials does not automatically convert those materials into public records or eliminate confidentiality protections.
- When rape-shield material is determined admissible and becomes part of the public record, restrictions on publication are strongly disfavored; continued nondisclosure may be limited to inadmissible sexual-history material.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court rejected a broad gag-and-destruction order as an unconstitutional prior restraint but allowed a limited confidentiality remedy tied to rape-shield purposes: release of a redacted transcript containing only relevant and admissible portions, with continued sealing of irrelevant and inadmissible sexual-history material.


People v. Bryant, 94 P.3d 624 (Colo. 2004)