Quote:
Originally Posted by Noid
A woman's past sexual history, at least until very recently (not sure if this has changed), could be used against her in a courtroom. Apparently having sex with A and B and C means you'd automatically have sex with D and E and F, no matter how gross they are.
|
Sort of. While it is true that anyone's past sexual history can be admissible, the Rule of Evidence that allows it, (Rule 412), is by default a rule of exclusion. The procedure required for getting this kind of evidence in at trial is also very specific and thorough.
Basically, the jury only gets to learn the evidence of the victim's previous sex acts with A, B and C if:
1. you can show that it's reasonably possible that the victim's previous sex acts with A, B and C were the actual cause of the victim's injuries, scientific evidence (i.e., semen found, etc.), disease, or knowledge of sexual matters in the present case,
2. you can show that the victim's previous sex acts with A, B, and C are of such a pattern (multiple persons/events, or more than one time) of sexual behavior so unique AND so closely resembling the defendant’s version of the alleged encounter with the victim that it tends to prove that the victim consented to the act charged or behaved in such a manner as to lead the defendant reasonably to believe that the victim consented, (I.e., the victim's past consistent AND unique sexual behavior with A and B and C matches D's claim that the victim consented in the present case), or
3. you're using the victim's past history with A, B, & C, to rebut statements made by the victim re: their own sexual history, BUT ONLY if the victim's sexual history was brought up first by the prosecution AND limited only to the extent necessary to rebut (I.e., Prosecutor Q: "Have you ever had sex before?" Victim A: "I've never had sex before." Now the defendant can rebut that statement by showing only the minimal amount of evidence necessary of A,B, & C's past sex with the victim).