B1700795, B1700110, B1702358: Sexual History in Rape Cases
VerifiedAdded on 2020/12/22
|10
|2614
|455
Essay
AI Summary
This essay, prepared by a student, examines the contentious issue of the relevance of a rape victim's sexual history in rape cases. It argues that the sexual history of a rape victim should not be considered relevant, primarily due to the protection of the victim's identity and right to privacy, as well as ...
Read More
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running head: THE SEXUAL HISTORY IS NOT RELEVANT IN RAPE CASES1
The Sexual history of a rape victim is not relevant in her rape case
AibakhtBissenova (B1700795)
Jonathan Ha HengSeng (B1700110)
SanjuktaPerumalSamy (B1702358)
HELP University
The Sexual history of a rape victim is not relevant in her rape case
AibakhtBissenova (B1700795)
Jonathan Ha HengSeng (B1700110)
SanjuktaPerumalSamy (B1702358)
HELP University
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
THE SEXUAL HISTORY IS NOT RELEVANT IN RAPE CASES 2
Outline
I. Introduction
A. Opener
B. Thesis statement: The sexual history of a rape victim is not relevant in her rape case.
II. Premise 1: The sexual history of a rape victim is only relevant if it is within the victim
and rapist.
A. Exceptions under Rule 412
B. Reputation is unacceptable
III. Premise 2: Women have right to not give consent on sexual activities.
A. Questioning about women’s character.
B. The proof a character
C. The case of Kobe Bryant
IV. Premise 3: Not revealing the sexual history of a woman it protects her identity and helps
defend herself against scrutinization.
A. Identity protection
B. Equal right protection
V. Counterargument: Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 stated that the rape
victim’s sexual history is relevant when judging the case.
A. Under case R v A
1. Rape victim’s sexual history had been admitted
2. Juries and judges can use it as evidence
Refutation: Rape Shield Law.
A. Prevent defendant from introducing the rape victim’s sexual history
B. Cannot introduce evidence of the rape victim’s bad character for chastity as tending
to prove consent
V. Conclusion
Outline
I. Introduction
A. Opener
B. Thesis statement: The sexual history of a rape victim is not relevant in her rape case.
II. Premise 1: The sexual history of a rape victim is only relevant if it is within the victim
and rapist.
A. Exceptions under Rule 412
B. Reputation is unacceptable
III. Premise 2: Women have right to not give consent on sexual activities.
A. Questioning about women’s character.
B. The proof a character
C. The case of Kobe Bryant
IV. Premise 3: Not revealing the sexual history of a woman it protects her identity and helps
defend herself against scrutinization.
A. Identity protection
B. Equal right protection
V. Counterargument: Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 stated that the rape
victim’s sexual history is relevant when judging the case.
A. Under case R v A
1. Rape victim’s sexual history had been admitted
2. Juries and judges can use it as evidence
Refutation: Rape Shield Law.
A. Prevent defendant from introducing the rape victim’s sexual history
B. Cannot introduce evidence of the rape victim’s bad character for chastity as tending
to prove consent
V. Conclusion
THE SEXUAL HISTORY IS NOT RELEVANT IN RAPE CASES 3
The sexual history of a victim is not relevant in her rape case
There were efforts made to protect rape victims from the humiliation of public disclosure
of the details of their prior sexual activities in the last few years. In other words, the legislatures
had passed shield laws restricting a criminal defendant's ability to present to the jury evidence of
past sexual history. However, the literature of the last few years had encouraged these laws and
attempted to justify any adverse consequences to the defendant by claiming the state's interest in
protecting rape victims is sufficiently important to overcome any constitutional objection
(Tanford&Bocchino, 1980). Through careful research, there were points to support that the
sexual history of the rape victim was not relevant to her rape case, for instance one of the points
was that various laws supported this statement which will be further explained later in this report.
The sexual history of a rape victim is not relevant in her rape case because it is only
relevant if it is within the plaintiff and the accused according to exceptions under rule 412 (Jeff,
2009). This kind of evidence is acceptable because preliminary agreement from a plaintiff to the
accused. Therefore, this evidence should be used only if the plaintiff is consented. For example,
the sexual history between the plaintiff and the accused is irrelevant if the accused denies any
sexual activity took place. Furthermore, evidence of the victim’s prior sexual history is
acceptable only when it concerns the accuser but when it comes to the sexual history of the
victim with other people, it should not concern the court as it is irrelevant. It does not follow that
every factor of that sexual history of a victim and an accuser must be agreed even if an accused
is entitled to introduce evidence of the plaintiff’s primary sexual history with him. The evidence
may be limited to that which is relevant to the consent issue; excess details of the sexual activity
that serve no purpose but to humiliate or embarrass the plaintiff may be excluded. When the
accused is charged with a single sexual assault, the plaintiff may testify that the accused
The sexual history of a victim is not relevant in her rape case
There were efforts made to protect rape victims from the humiliation of public disclosure
of the details of their prior sexual activities in the last few years. In other words, the legislatures
had passed shield laws restricting a criminal defendant's ability to present to the jury evidence of
past sexual history. However, the literature of the last few years had encouraged these laws and
attempted to justify any adverse consequences to the defendant by claiming the state's interest in
protecting rape victims is sufficiently important to overcome any constitutional objection
(Tanford&Bocchino, 1980). Through careful research, there were points to support that the
sexual history of the rape victim was not relevant to her rape case, for instance one of the points
was that various laws supported this statement which will be further explained later in this report.
The sexual history of a rape victim is not relevant in her rape case because it is only
relevant if it is within the plaintiff and the accused according to exceptions under rule 412 (Jeff,
2009). This kind of evidence is acceptable because preliminary agreement from a plaintiff to the
accused. Therefore, this evidence should be used only if the plaintiff is consented. For example,
the sexual history between the plaintiff and the accused is irrelevant if the accused denies any
sexual activity took place. Furthermore, evidence of the victim’s prior sexual history is
acceptable only when it concerns the accuser but when it comes to the sexual history of the
victim with other people, it should not concern the court as it is irrelevant. It does not follow that
every factor of that sexual history of a victim and an accuser must be agreed even if an accused
is entitled to introduce evidence of the plaintiff’s primary sexual history with him. The evidence
may be limited to that which is relevant to the consent issue; excess details of the sexual activity
that serve no purpose but to humiliate or embarrass the plaintiff may be excluded. When the
accused is charged with a single sexual assault, the plaintiff may testify that the accused
THE SEXUAL HISTORY IS NOT RELEVANT IN RAPE CASES 4
committed similar, uncharged assaults on her without running a conflict of Rule 412, as such
evidence is acceptable under this exception (Jeff, 2009). The rule then follows the most common
pattern, setting forth a few specific instances in which the defendant's obvious need to introduce
such evidence is so great that preventing it would violate a due process. The rule then follows the
most common pattern, setting forth a few specific instances in which the defendant's obvious
need to introduce such evidence is so great that preventing it would violate a due process.
Congress chooses two situations in which to allow this evidence: (a) past sexual behavior of a
victim with persons other than the accused, offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the
accused was the source of semen or injury or other physical evidence. (b) Past sexual behavior
with the accused and is offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the alleged victim
consented or if offered by the prosecutor (The Committee on the Judiciary House Of
Representatives, 2014). Hence, according to rule 412 the sexual history of a victim is only
relevant if it is between the victim and the accused one.
In addition, women have rights not to give consent on sexual activities regardless of who
they are. When the court questions about the sexual history of a victim, they are doing it because
they do not trust women’s character as they might be prostitutes or any other sex workers or even
lie about the rape case. Even though they are prostitutes or any other sex workers and if the
victims are not agreed with the sexual intercourse, they all have right to not give consent on
sexual activities. Accordingly, when they put a law that you should not provide history of a
victim then it automatically prevents defendants to prove his innocence (England, 2019).
However, not everything about the alleged victim’s past can be used as evidence to protect the
accused one. If the court considers about the sexual history of a victim, it will affect the final
decision against the victim. Most women were virtuous by nature and that an unchaste woman
committed similar, uncharged assaults on her without running a conflict of Rule 412, as such
evidence is acceptable under this exception (Jeff, 2009). The rule then follows the most common
pattern, setting forth a few specific instances in which the defendant's obvious need to introduce
such evidence is so great that preventing it would violate a due process. The rule then follows the
most common pattern, setting forth a few specific instances in which the defendant's obvious
need to introduce such evidence is so great that preventing it would violate a due process.
Congress chooses two situations in which to allow this evidence: (a) past sexual behavior of a
victim with persons other than the accused, offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the
accused was the source of semen or injury or other physical evidence. (b) Past sexual behavior
with the accused and is offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the alleged victim
consented or if offered by the prosecutor (The Committee on the Judiciary House Of
Representatives, 2014). Hence, according to rule 412 the sexual history of a victim is only
relevant if it is between the victim and the accused one.
In addition, women have rights not to give consent on sexual activities regardless of who
they are. When the court questions about the sexual history of a victim, they are doing it because
they do not trust women’s character as they might be prostitutes or any other sex workers or even
lie about the rape case. Even though they are prostitutes or any other sex workers and if the
victims are not agreed with the sexual intercourse, they all have right to not give consent on
sexual activities. Accordingly, when they put a law that you should not provide history of a
victim then it automatically prevents defendants to prove his innocence (England, 2019).
However, not everything about the alleged victim’s past can be used as evidence to protect the
accused one. If the court considers about the sexual history of a victim, it will affect the final
decision against the victim. Most women were virtuous by nature and that an unchaste woman
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
THE SEXUAL HISTORY IS NOT RELEVANT IN RAPE CASES 5
must therefore have an unusual character flaw (Tanford, 1980). This character trait had caused
her to consent in the past (when, obviously, a "normal" woman would never have consented) and
made it likely she would consent repeatedly. Because consent was a defense to rape, evidence
that was thought to show a propensity towards sexual relations was always admissible to suggest
consent in the instance. Courts and legislatures have adapted to the times and have realized that a
unchaste-or woman in modem parlance, who has had extramarital sexual relationships-is no
more likely to consent indiscriminately than a chaste woman. For example, in the case of Kobe
Bryant to illustrate some of the questions that arise at the intersection of evidence and ethics in
rape trial (Murthy, 2019). In the Bryant case, a nineteen-year-old woman working at a resort
accused the basketball star of rape. She admitted flirting and kissing with Bryant but claimed she
did not give consent on sexual activities and she still got raped. Consequently, she condemned
him for raping. As a result, the victim received many negative criticisms and judgments.
Subsequently, she ultimately decided not to cooperate with the prosecution and ended up settling
her civil suit against Bryant shortly before his scheduled deposition in the civil case. Doubtless,
it is galling for any honest witness, let alone a victim of a crime, to be cross-examined in such a
way that makes him or her look like a liar. There is something especially degrading about the
cross-examination of an honest rape victim. She is made to relive a traumatic moment in her life
and discuss sexual matters in open court (Anderson, 2019). Furthermore, in consent cases, the
defense rarely asserts that the victim is mistaken-that works for stranger cases, but not so well for
acquaintance rape. Rather, the victim is portrayed by the defense as delusional (either mentally
unsound or so terribly repressed she cannot confront her own complicity in having had sex), a
vengeful liar, a gold digger, an attention seeker, or an unpaid prostitute. Thus, in this case the
sexual history of a victim is not relevant in her rape case.
must therefore have an unusual character flaw (Tanford, 1980). This character trait had caused
her to consent in the past (when, obviously, a "normal" woman would never have consented) and
made it likely she would consent repeatedly. Because consent was a defense to rape, evidence
that was thought to show a propensity towards sexual relations was always admissible to suggest
consent in the instance. Courts and legislatures have adapted to the times and have realized that a
unchaste-or woman in modem parlance, who has had extramarital sexual relationships-is no
more likely to consent indiscriminately than a chaste woman. For example, in the case of Kobe
Bryant to illustrate some of the questions that arise at the intersection of evidence and ethics in
rape trial (Murthy, 2019). In the Bryant case, a nineteen-year-old woman working at a resort
accused the basketball star of rape. She admitted flirting and kissing with Bryant but claimed she
did not give consent on sexual activities and she still got raped. Consequently, she condemned
him for raping. As a result, the victim received many negative criticisms and judgments.
Subsequently, she ultimately decided not to cooperate with the prosecution and ended up settling
her civil suit against Bryant shortly before his scheduled deposition in the civil case. Doubtless,
it is galling for any honest witness, let alone a victim of a crime, to be cross-examined in such a
way that makes him or her look like a liar. There is something especially degrading about the
cross-examination of an honest rape victim. She is made to relive a traumatic moment in her life
and discuss sexual matters in open court (Anderson, 2019). Furthermore, in consent cases, the
defense rarely asserts that the victim is mistaken-that works for stranger cases, but not so well for
acquaintance rape. Rather, the victim is portrayed by the defense as delusional (either mentally
unsound or so terribly repressed she cannot confront her own complicity in having had sex), a
vengeful liar, a gold digger, an attention seeker, or an unpaid prostitute. Thus, in this case the
sexual history of a victim is not relevant in her rape case.
THE SEXUAL HISTORY IS NOT RELEVANT IN RAPE CASES 6
The final reason why the sexual history of a victim is not relevant in her rape case is that
not revealing the sexual history of a woman protects her identity and helps to defend herself
against scrutinization (Tanford, 1980).In tackling the issues first, we must balance our concern
for victim protection and privacy with respect for the victim's independence, autonomy, and
agency. Second, despite whatever sympathies we have for victims of sexual crimes, we must
balance those feelings with a dedication to the presumption of innocence and a commitment to
the rights of anyone accused of a crime to confront witnesses, including the right to ask the star
witness against him tough, and perhaps uncomfortable questions. Thus, not revealing the sexual
history of a victim is not relevant in her rape case is because it protects her identity and moral
rights. However, if the sexual history is at all relevant both the victim and the accused one should
equally reveal it.
Although it might seem that, the sexual history of the rape victim is not relevant to her
case based on the points that stated previously. But if this is so, what about section 41 of Youth
Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 which stated clearly there is restriction on evidence or
question about complainant’s sexual history (The Stationery Office Limited, 1999). Put
differently, the rape victim’s sexual history was relevant in her rape case under this section of
law, as it showed that there were ways to present the victim’s sexual history to the judge. For
instance, under case R v A, the court held that the evidence of rape victim’s previous sexual
history could be admitted (Teacher Law, 2013). This implies that the judges and juries were able
to use the rape victim’s sexual history as an evidence to judge the case. Moreover, in case of
Ched Evans, the court allows the jury to hear the sexual history of the victim to judge the case
(Topping & Morris, 2016). Based on the two principles of these two cases, it implied the idea
that the sexual history of the victims is relevant for juries and judges to judge the case. However,
The final reason why the sexual history of a victim is not relevant in her rape case is that
not revealing the sexual history of a woman protects her identity and helps to defend herself
against scrutinization (Tanford, 1980).In tackling the issues first, we must balance our concern
for victim protection and privacy with respect for the victim's independence, autonomy, and
agency. Second, despite whatever sympathies we have for victims of sexual crimes, we must
balance those feelings with a dedication to the presumption of innocence and a commitment to
the rights of anyone accused of a crime to confront witnesses, including the right to ask the star
witness against him tough, and perhaps uncomfortable questions. Thus, not revealing the sexual
history of a victim is not relevant in her rape case is because it protects her identity and moral
rights. However, if the sexual history is at all relevant both the victim and the accused one should
equally reveal it.
Although it might seem that, the sexual history of the rape victim is not relevant to her
case based on the points that stated previously. But if this is so, what about section 41 of Youth
Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 which stated clearly there is restriction on evidence or
question about complainant’s sexual history (The Stationery Office Limited, 1999). Put
differently, the rape victim’s sexual history was relevant in her rape case under this section of
law, as it showed that there were ways to present the victim’s sexual history to the judge. For
instance, under case R v A, the court held that the evidence of rape victim’s previous sexual
history could be admitted (Teacher Law, 2013). This implies that the judges and juries were able
to use the rape victim’s sexual history as an evidence to judge the case. Moreover, in case of
Ched Evans, the court allows the jury to hear the sexual history of the victim to judge the case
(Topping & Morris, 2016). Based on the two principles of these two cases, it implied the idea
that the sexual history of the victims is relevant for juries and judges to judge the case. However,
THE SEXUAL HISTORY IS NOT RELEVANT IN RAPE CASES 7
under rape shield law, it stated there are lots of restrictions and limitations to use rape victim’s
sexual history in for the juries to judge the case, one of the limitations was the defendant cannot
introduce evidence of the rape victim’s bad character for chastity as tending to prove consent
(Rudstein, 1976). In summing up it can be said that, although there are cases and law supported
that the sexual history of the alleged rape victims were relevant to the case, however, there were
restrictions and limitations for judges to apply rape victim’s sexual history on the court for
judgment.
In conclusion, everybody had different points of views on the issue whether the sexual
history of a rape victim relevant in her rape case. However, based on the points that had been
listed on this report, it showed there was no relevance between rape victim’s sexual history and
her rape case. This is because there were laws that limited and restricted judges from using
complainant's’ sexual history as an evidence for judging the case, moreover, every person has
their right to defend their personal identity although they did crime. Therefore, the sexual history
of a rape victim is not relevant in her rape case. ("Human Rights Act 1998", 1998). Furthermore,
under article 8 of Human Rights Act 1998 it stated clearly there were rights to respect for private
and family life. In other words, this implied the idea that everyone has the right to respect his or
her private life, although that person was charged under an offence. Overall, it showed that the
rape victim’s sexual history was not relevant to her rape case.
under rape shield law, it stated there are lots of restrictions and limitations to use rape victim’s
sexual history in for the juries to judge the case, one of the limitations was the defendant cannot
introduce evidence of the rape victim’s bad character for chastity as tending to prove consent
(Rudstein, 1976). In summing up it can be said that, although there are cases and law supported
that the sexual history of the alleged rape victims were relevant to the case, however, there were
restrictions and limitations for judges to apply rape victim’s sexual history on the court for
judgment.
In conclusion, everybody had different points of views on the issue whether the sexual
history of a rape victim relevant in her rape case. However, based on the points that had been
listed on this report, it showed there was no relevance between rape victim’s sexual history and
her rape case. This is because there were laws that limited and restricted judges from using
complainant's’ sexual history as an evidence for judging the case, moreover, every person has
their right to defend their personal identity although they did crime. Therefore, the sexual history
of a rape victim is not relevant in her rape case. ("Human Rights Act 1998", 1998). Furthermore,
under article 8 of Human Rights Act 1998 it stated clearly there were rights to respect for private
and family life. In other words, this implied the idea that everyone has the right to respect his or
her private life, although that person was charged under an offence. Overall, it showed that the
rape victim’s sexual history was not relevant to her rape case.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
THE SEXUAL HISTORY IS NOT RELEVANT IN RAPE CASES 8
References
Anderson, M. (2019). Time to Reform Rape Shield Laws Kobe Bryant Case Highlights Holes in
the Armor 19 Criminal Justice 2004-2005. Heinonline.org. Retrieved from:
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cjust19&div=23&id=&pa
England, D. (2019). In a rape case, can a defendant bring up his accuser's sexual history
Retrieved from https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/in-a-rape-case-can-
defendant-bringa
Human Rights Act 1998. (1998, November 9). Retrieved from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/data.pdf
Murthy, S. (2019). Rejecting Unreasonable Sexual Expectations: Limits on Using a Rape
Victim's Sexual History to Show the Defendant's Mistaken Belief in Consent Comment 79
California Law Review 1991. Heinonline.org. Retrieved from:
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/calr79&div=22&id=&pa
Rudstein, D. S. (1976). Rape Shield Laws: Some Constitutional Problems. Retrieved from
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.ecosia.org/&htt
psredir=1&article=2418&context=w
The Committee on The Judiciary House Of Representatives. (2014, December 1). FEDERAL
RULES OF EVIDENCE. Retrieved from https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-iv/rule
412/
References
Anderson, M. (2019). Time to Reform Rape Shield Laws Kobe Bryant Case Highlights Holes in
the Armor 19 Criminal Justice 2004-2005. Heinonline.org. Retrieved from:
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cjust19&div=23&id=&pa
England, D. (2019). In a rape case, can a defendant bring up his accuser's sexual history
Retrieved from https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/in-a-rape-case-can-
defendant-bringa
Human Rights Act 1998. (1998, November 9). Retrieved from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/data.pdf
Murthy, S. (2019). Rejecting Unreasonable Sexual Expectations: Limits on Using a Rape
Victim's Sexual History to Show the Defendant's Mistaken Belief in Consent Comment 79
California Law Review 1991. Heinonline.org. Retrieved from:
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/calr79&div=22&id=&pa
Rudstein, D. S. (1976). Rape Shield Laws: Some Constitutional Problems. Retrieved from
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.ecosia.org/&htt
psredir=1&article=2418&context=w
The Committee on The Judiciary House Of Representatives. (2014, December 1). FEDERAL
RULES OF EVIDENCE. Retrieved from https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-iv/rule
412/
THE SEXUAL HISTORY IS NOT RELEVANT IN RAPE CASES 9
The Stationery Office Limited. (1999, August 4). Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act
1999. Retrieved from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/pdfs/ukpga_19990023_en
Tanford, J. A., &Bocchino, A. J. (1980). RAPE VICTIM SHIELD LAWS AND THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=4788&context=penn_law_review
Tanford, P. (1980). RAPE VICTIM SHIELD LAWS AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT. Retrieved
from https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4788&context=penn_law review
Teacher, Law. (November 2013). R v A (No.2) – Case Summary. Retrieved from
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-a.php?vref=1
Topping, A., & Morris, S. (2016, October 14). Ched Evans: footballer found not guilty of
rape in retrial. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/
footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial
The Stationery Office Limited. (1999, August 4). Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act
1999. Retrieved from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/pdfs/ukpga_19990023_en
Tanford, J. A., &Bocchino, A. J. (1980). RAPE VICTIM SHIELD LAWS AND THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=4788&context=penn_law_review
Tanford, P. (1980). RAPE VICTIM SHIELD LAWS AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT. Retrieved
from https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4788&context=penn_law review
Teacher, Law. (November 2013). R v A (No.2) – Case Summary. Retrieved from
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-a.php?vref=1
Topping, A., & Morris, S. (2016, October 14). Ched Evans: footballer found not guilty of
rape in retrial. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/
footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial
THE SEXUAL HISTORY IS NOT RELEVANT IN RAPE CASES 10
Welty. J. (2009, August). Special Evidentiary Issues in Sexual Assault Cases: The Rape Shield
Law and Evidence of Prior Sexual Misconduct by the Defendant. Retrieved from
https://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/Special%20Evidentiary%20Issuesq
20in%20Sexual%20Assaault%20Cases-q %20The%20Rape%20Shield%20Law
%20and%20Evidence%20of%20Prior%20Sexual% 20Misconduct%20by%20the
%20Defendant_0.pdf
Welty. J. (2009, August). Special Evidentiary Issues in Sexual Assault Cases: The Rape Shield
Law and Evidence of Prior Sexual Misconduct by the Defendant. Retrieved from
https://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/Special%20Evidentiary%20Issuesq
20in%20Sexual%20Assaault%20Cases-q %20The%20Rape%20Shield%20Law
%20and%20Evidence%20of%20Prior%20Sexual% 20Misconduct%20by%20the
%20Defendant_0.pdf
1 out of 10
Related Documents
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
+13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
Unlock your academic potential
© 2024 | Zucol Services PVT LTD | All rights reserved.