Prosecution will lay out evidence for all to see if the Lakers star attempts to avoid a trial.

By Tim Dahlberg ~ The Associated Press

EAGLE, Colo. -- Attorneys in the Kobe Bryant case huddled with the judge Tuesday but didn't answer the biggest question: Will the NBA star waive his preliminary hearing to keep potentially damaging evidence from being heard publicly?

That decision might not be made until minutes before Thursday's hearing, where prosecutors will present evidence they say proves Bryant raped a young hotel worker in his room at a mountain lodge on June 30.

Though everyone involved in the case has been silenced by a gag order, many legal analysts expect the defense to waive the preliminary hearing and acknowledge there is enough evidence for a judge to order a trial.

"If they have the hearing the public is going to hear basically all the details of what happened that night and it's going to be told from the prosecution's perspective," said Karen Steinhauser, a former prosecutor and law professor at the University of Denver. "There's a lot of unfavorable evidence going to be brought out in public."

Another reason for waiving the hearing is that the defense has little to gain, said Denver defense attorney Dan Recht.

"There's no way the defense will win a preliminary hearing. No way. None," Recht said.

Even if the hearing is waived, Bryant must appear Thursday in front of Judge Frederick Gannett for a bail hearing. Bryant, free on $25,000 bail, would also at some point have to appear in another court to enter a plea to the sexual assault charge.

Bryant was in Hawaii this week, where the Los Angeles Lakers were training and playing their first exhibition games.

The basketball star's attorneys met earlier in the day with prosecutors and Gannett for more than an hour, discussing what a court spokeswoman called logistical issues. Exiting the courtroom, Gannett wouldn't comment, other than saying the issue of waiving the preliminary hearing was not discussed.

Attorneys were to meet with the judge once more Thursday, just 45 minutes before the hearing, to resolve other issues. At that point, defense attorneys could move to waive the hearing and take their chances at trial.

Prosecutors planned to bring a sheriff's detective to the stand at the preliminary hearing to discuss the investigation and the conclusions reached by a nurse who examined Bryant's accuser.

"The vast majority of the time defense attorneys waive the hearing," Steinhauser said. "They don't stand to gain a whole lot by having it."

Bryant's attorneys haven't had much success in front of Gannett so far. They have already lost efforts to get the alleged victim's medical and psychological records, and on Monday Gannett ruled they cannot have access to notes taken by a rape crisis center worker during an interview with the accuser.

Eagle County authorities, meanwhile, moved ahead with preparations for Bryant's second court visit, which appears likely to generate the same circus-like atmosphere as his first appearance Aug. 6.

Bryant uttered just two words during that seven-minute hearing, which brought out dozens of his supporters and created a media frenzy the likes of which this quiet mountain town had never seen.

The same media throngs are back in town, only this time Eagle is more ready for them. The county paved a new parking lot next to the small Eagle County Justice Center for media and overflow parking, and had stacks of guides printed to direct visiting journalists and others to local restaurants and other businesses.

Security has also been beefed up after dozens of threats made against the prosecutor, the judge and Bryant's 19-year-old accuser. Armed guards will be at the courthouse, one entrance will be locked, and a metal detector will be set up at the other door for only the third time in years.

Also Tuesday, the judge issued an amended order on how he expects the media to behave. There will be no cameras in the courtroom, although an artist will be allowed to sketch the proceedings.

In the amended order, the judge deleted a section threatening to punish anyone who disclosed the victim's name or showed her picture. That threat had been called unconstitutional by media attorneys.