Rape Shield Law: Evidence And Prosecutor's Role

Rape shield laws are designed to protect the victims of sex crimes during criminal proceedings. They limit the ability of the defendant's counsel to introduce the accuser's sexual history as evidence during a rape trial, and therefore can prevent the accuser from being discredited by information that is not relevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence. In most cases, the defendant cannot introduce evidence of the victim's sexual history in an attempt to disprove the prosecution's case. However, there are some exceptions to this rule, and the laws vary from state to state.

Rape shield laws: Evidence of victim's sexual history

Rape shield laws are designed to limit the ability of a defendant to introduce evidence about the past sexual activity of a complainant in a sexual assault trial. They also limit the cross-examination of complainants about their past sexual behaviour in sexual assault cases. The laws were introduced to prevent the discrediting of an accuser by information that is not relevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence.

In most rape cases, the defendant cannot introduce evidence of the victim's sexual history in an attempt to disprove the prosecution's case. Rape shield laws vary from state to state, but they generally aim to protect the confidentiality of rape victims' prior sexual conduct with individuals other than the defendant. For example, defendants typically can't introduce evidence of the victims' prior consensual sexual relationships. However, evidence of a victim's conduct with the defendant may be allowed under certain circumstances, such as when it relates to consent.

Some states bar evidence about a victim's sexual reputation, while others allow some inquiry into specific instances of sexual conduct by the victim if it has a bearing on the issues raised in the rape case. For example, a defendant may be allowed to introduce evidence that the victim had previously consented to bondage during a consensual sexual encounter to show that when the defendant tied her up, it was in the context of consensual sexual activity.

In some states, such as California, a defendant must make a special motion to the judge, stating that they have an "offer of proof" to make. This motion must be supported by a sealed affidavit showing the relevance of the evidence. If the court finds the offer of proof sufficient, it will order a closed hearing to determine whether the victim must testify about their prior sexual conduct in open court. The court will allow the introduction of the victim's prior sexual conduct at trial only if it is relevant to the issues in the case and the relevance of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.

Rape shield laws: Evidence of victim's sexual behaviour

Rape shield laws are designed to limit the ability of a defendant to introduce evidence about the past sexual activity of a complainant in a sexual assault trial. They also limit the cross-examination of complainants about their past sexual behaviour in sexual assault cases.

In most rape cases, the defendant cannot introduce evidence of the victim's sexual history in an attempt to disprove the prosecution's case. This is a marked change from previous eras, when criminal defendants charged with rape were free to attack the character of their accusers, attempting to label them as unchaste and, therefore, unworthy of trust.

Rape shield laws were introduced in the late 20th century, with the first passed in the US state of Michigan in 1974. Within two decades, almost every US state had enacted one. While the laws were popular, they also drew criticism, with some arguing that they violated a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront their accuser.

The laws aim to:

• Prohibit the admission of evidence of a complainant's sexual reputation.
• Prevent the use of sexual history evidence to establish the complainant as a 'type' of person who is more likely to consent to sexual activity.
• Exclude the use of a complainant's sexual history as an indicator of the complainant's truthfulness.

Some jurisdictions, such as Arizona, allow some inquiry into specific instances of sexual conduct by the victim if the conduct has a bearing on the issues raised in the rape case. For example, a defendant may be allowed to introduce evidence that the victim had previously consented to bondage during a consensual sexual encounter to show that when the defendant tied them up, it was in the context of consensual sexual activity.

In some jurisdictions, such as California, a defendant must make a special motion to the judge, stating that they have an 'offer of proof' to make to the court. Such a motion must be supported by a sealed affidavit showing the relevance of the evidence. The court will then consider the motion and, if it finds the offer of proof sufficient, it will order a closed hearing (out of the presence of the jury and public) in which the victim will be called to testify on their prior sexual conduct. The court will allow the introduction of the victim's prior sexual conduct at trial only if:

• It is relevant to the issues in the case at hand.
• The relevance of the evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct outweighs its prejudicial effect.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) includes a federal rape shield law prohibiting rape defendants in federal cases from using a rape victim's sexual past against them in court. While most rape cases are prosecuted under state law, the federal rape shield law may be invoked in rape cases arising on Native American tribal lands.

Rape shield laws: Evidence of victim's sexual reputation

Rape shield laws are designed to protect the victims of sex crimes during criminal proceedings. They limit the ability of the defendant to introduce evidence about the complainant's past sexual activity or behaviour in a sexual assault trial. The laws also prohibit the publication of the identity of a complainant in a sexual assault case.

In most rape cases, the defendant cannot introduce evidence of the victim's sexual history in an attempt to disprove the prosecution's case. Rape shield laws vary from state to state, but they generally aim to prohibit the admission of evidence of a complainant's sexual reputation, prevent the use of sexual history evidence to establish the complainant as a 'type' of person who is more likely to consent to sexual activity, and exclude the use of a complainant's sexual history as an indicator of the complainant's truthfulness.

Some states bar evidence about a victim's sexual reputation. For example, Arizona's Criminal Code includes a statute entitled "Evidence Relating to Victim's Chastity," which bars any evidence relating to a rape or sexual assault victim's reputation for "chastity." However, Arizona, like many states with these types of shield laws, allows some inquiry into specific instances of sexual conduct by the victim if the conduct has a bearing on the issues raised in the rape case.

In some cases, a court may allow evidence of a particular instance of sexual conduct by the victim to be introduced if it is relevant to the rape charge. For example, evidence of a consensual sexual encounter between the defendant and the victim after the alleged rape may be allowed into evidence because it may cast doubt on the victim's allegation that the incident was nonconsensual.

Some states provide less of a "shield" or protection from disclosure of a rape victim's prior sexual conduct if the conduct is shown to be particularly relevant to the rape case and is not overly harmful to the victim. In these cases, the defendant must make a special motion to the judge, stating that they have an "offer of proof" to make. The court will then consider the motion and, if it finds the offer of proof sufficient, will order a closed hearing to determine whether the victim must testify about their prior sexual conduct in open court. The court will allow the introduction of the victim's prior sexual conduct at trial only if it is relevant to the issues in the case and the relevance of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.

Rape shield laws: Evidence of victim's sexual predisposition

Rape shield laws are designed to limit the ability of a defendant to introduce evidence about the past sexual activity of the complainant in a sexual assault trial. They also limit the cross-examination of complainants about their past sexual behaviour in such cases. The laws were introduced to prevent defendants from attacking the character of their accusers and trying to label them as unchaste and, therefore, unworthy of trust.

In most rape cases, the defendant cannot introduce evidence of the victim's sexual history in an attempt to disprove the prosecution's case. However, there are exceptions. For example, in the US, evidence of the victim's sexual behaviour may be admitted if it is offered to prove that someone other than the defendant was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence. Evidence of the victim's sexual behaviour with the defendant may also be admitted if offered by the defendant to prove consent or if offered by the prosecutor. Additionally, evidence of the victim's sexual behaviour may be admitted if its exclusion would violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

In the US, the admissibility of evidence about the victim's sexual behaviour is determined by Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 412. This rule applies to both civil and criminal proceedings and aims to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment, and sexual stereotyping. It also encourages victims to come forward and participate in legal proceedings against alleged offenders.

In Canada, the rape shield law was initially struck down in 1991 because the Supreme Court found that the restrictions placed on the accused's ability to lead evidence were too strict. However, the law was amended in 1992 to re-establish the rape shield provision with strict guidelines for when and how previous sexual conduct could be used by a defendant at trial.

In India, Sections 44 and 44A of the Evidence Act set out rules for propensity evidence about a complainant's sexual experience and reputation in sexual cases. Section 44 protects complainants in prosecutions for sexual offences from questions and evidence about their sexual experience and reputation with individuals other than the defendant. However, a judge may permit such evidence if it is directly relevant to the facts in issue or the question of the appropriate sentence. Section 44A provides that no evidence of a complainant's sexual experience may be offered in a criminal proceeding without prior notice to the other parties.

Rape shield laws: Evidence of victim's sexual activities

Rape shield laws are designed to limit the ability of a defendant to introduce evidence about the past sexual activity of a complainant in a sexual assault trial. They also limit the cross-examination of complainants about their past sexual behaviour in sexual assault cases. The laws were introduced to prevent defendants from attacking the character of their accusers, attempting to label them as unchaste and, therefore, unworthy of trust.

In most rape cases, the defendant cannot introduce evidence of the victim's sexual history to attempt to disprove the prosecution. This is known as the 'shield'. However, the shield is not absolute, and there are some exceptions where a defendant may introduce evidence of a victim's sexual history.

Evidence of a victim's sexual history with a third party

In some jurisdictions, such as Arizona, evidence of a victim's sexual history with a third party may be admissible if it has a bearing on the issues raised in the rape case. For example, if a defendant tied up the victim, they may be able to introduce evidence that the victim had previously consented to bondage during a consensual sexual encounter.

Evidence of a victim's sexual history with the defendant

Evidence of a victim's sexual history with the defendant may be admissible if it is relevant to the issues in the case and its relevance outweighs its prejudicial effect. For example, evidence of a consensual sexual encounter between the defendant and the victim after the alleged rape may cast doubt on the victim's allegation that the incident was nonconsensual.

Evidence that someone other than the defendant was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence

In some jurisdictions, such as the United States, evidence of a victim's sexual behaviour may be admissible to prove that someone other than the defendant was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence.

Evidence that the exclusion of the above evidence would violate the defendant's constitutional rights

In some jurisdictions, such as the United States, evidence of a victim's sexual history may be admissible if its exclusion would violate the defendant's constitutional rights, such as the right to confront their accuser.

Special rules for civil cases

In civil cases, the court may admit evidence of a victim's sexual behaviour or sexual predisposition if its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to the victim and unfair prejudice to any party.

Frequently asked questions