These are three things you should know about sexual assault trials. There’s so much more that goes into any sexual assault allegation, but these three things may surprise you.
An Alleged Victim’s Sexual History is Heavily Protected at Trial
Federal and state courts have remarkably strong safe guards in favor of an alleged sexual assault victim’s right to privacy. These laws are known as Rape-Shield laws in many courts.
Rape-shield laws typically provide that the past sexual predispositions and behaviors of an alleged victim cannot ordinarily be used at trial. In order to make mention of virtually any information that contains sexualized connotation, the defense has to first file a timely motion with the judge asking permission to use the information at trial. The defense then has to prove why that information is critical to their defense, which is often an uphill battle unless you can directly link the past event with the Accused’s belief that the alleged sexual assault was consensual, or to discredit the alleged victim in a manner directly relevant to the allegations at hand.
Can Prior Affairs Be Used Against a Sexual Assault Accuser?
If there’s an extramarital relationship between the alleged victim and the accused, that can be used as a plausible reason for a false accusation. Even if that past affair wasn’t with the Accused, but with someone else, that information may still be admissible if the defense can clearly identify an explanation as to how that past relationship formed a motive for the alleged victim to lie against the Accused.
In our line of work, we call all of these circumstances motives to lie or motives to fabricate. And so, in this example, an extra-marital relationship could be a motive to fabricate. If our client had an affair with a married woman, and that married woman later alleges that our client sexually assaulted her, we could introduce evidence of their prior affair, and potentially even evidence of her affairs with other men, if you can show how her sexual history created a reason for her to lie or to show why the Accused thought he had consent.
If the alleged victim was married, perhaps that person’s spouse was unaware of the extramarital relationship, and that can cause the alleged victim to claim sexual assault to avoid personal responsibility for the infidelity. It’s sad to say, but we see that in a lot of cases. Many alleged victims attempt to get around their own accountability by making claims of sexual assault.
We’ve even seen it in cases where a someone uses a sexual assault allegation to explain their poor performance or to explain any variety of things that might be going on in their personal life. Whether it’s an affair, or any other motive to fabricate, it’s all about how your attorney navigates the rules of the court in order to present the strongest evidence of your innocence.
Previous False Allegations of Sexual Assault Might Not be Admissible
If an alleged victim has made previous false accusations of sexual assault, it depends on the particular case on whether that information can be entered into evidence for the defense. Again, Rape-shield laws limit the amount of information that is not related to the sexual assault at issue from being placed before the jury. So, prior claims of sexual assault or sexual offenses, if false, may be admissible, and that’s a maybe. It really depends on the ability of the defense attorney to convince the judge that that information is relevant to the case at hand.
Current case law generally says that the burden is on the defense to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an alleged victim’s prior sexual assault claim is untrue before being permitted to use it at trial. When we prep our cases, we go through an extensive investigation to determine whether an alleged victim has made previous claims of sexual assault. We investigate to determine what happened with those previous claims. Oftentimes, we hear the government argue that somebody can lie in one circumstance and tell the truth in another, and while that’s true, in sexual assault cases, the truth is extremely important. Credibility is extremely important. Therefore, you need an attorney that’s capable of convincing the judge to allow these false accusations in the past to be used in the defense of your particular case.
You Have a Right to Have Experts in a Sexual Assault Case
There are dozens of ways in which an expert witness could be important in a criminal trial. In sexual assault cases, there could be a need for an expert in psychology, DNA analysis, digital forensics, gynecology, toxicology, and law enforcement. We’ve seen these types of experts in famous TV cases like in the Johnny Depp case, and many others.
In a criminal case, an accused person has the right to expert consultants and witnesses in any field that are deemed relevant. The experts that we typically use are nationally renown figures in their field with incredible reputations.
In some cases, the prosecution uses their own experts to help prove their case. If the prosecution expert does say something wrong, you want a defense attorney with extensive experience with experts in the field and who are able to effectively cross examine and impeach their witness. It may also be important to have an expert of your own to testify against the prosecution’s expert.
In other situations, the defense expert is needed to present scientific information even though the prosecution does not have expert testimony to present. We have used this strategy many times to call an expert in the defense side of the case to help prove why the allegations are untrue or unreliable.
Since so many sexual assault cases involve alcohol, often an expert in forensic psychology or toxicology is necessary for the defense to offer testimony about the effects of alcohol and how those effects can reduce the reliability of the allegations.
At Golden Law, we’ve established great relationships with some of the best experts in the world, and have those experts by our side when we walk into a courtroom. We will find the right experts for your case to work for the defense, even when the government wants to involve their experts, no matter how reliable or unreliable they may be.
