The case against Bryant began on June 30, 2003, when he checked into the Cordillera Lodge and Spa in Edwards, Colo. He was there to have a knee operation at a clinic in nearby Vail.

After being led to his room by a concierge, Bryant asked her to return later and give him a private tour of the property. She did, and then Bryant invited her into his room. They both said later that they began kissing, but what happened in the next few minutes became the heart of the dispute. The woman told the police that Bryant had raped her. Bryant said they had consensual sex.

Prosecutors seemed to have a strong case. According to court documents, an examination of the woman at a hospital revealed a bruise on her neck and tears in her vaginal wall. Both her underwear and Bryant’s shirt were bloody. Bryant told the police he had not explicitly asked for consent.

While the issue of consent has long been at the heart of sex crime laws, how it is understood and taught has evolved — in part because of high-profile cases like the one against Bryant. “No means no” has given way to “yes means yes,” and the idea of explicit consent has become the standard, rather than an expectation that an objecting participant must say no.

Almost immediately the case against Bryant became a news media circus, the biggest celebrity prosecution since the O.J. Simpson trial. Quickly though, the accuser’s reputation came under attack. Bryant’s lawyer, Pamela Mackey, said the woman’s name in open court six times during one hearing — even though the police and court officials had tried to preserve her anonymity — and asked if her injuries could have been caused “by having sex with three men in three days.” Television crews camped outside the home of the accuser’s parents, and her name was leaked by the court system three times.