Citation

Capers B. Harvard J. Law Gend. 2017; 40: 183-228.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, President and Fellows of Harvard College, Publisher Harvard Law School Publications)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Though known among Evidence scholars, Stephens v. Miller is not a ground-breaking case. In applying a rape shield law to the "she said, he said" facts before it--she said her acquaintance attempted to rape her, he said they had consensual sex--and in wrestling with whether the application of the rape shield deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to present a defense, the Seventh Circuit en banc opinion forged no new law. Instead, the plurality engaged in a rather straightforward, even predictable, analysis. The opinion's references to "doggy fashion" sex may give the case some singularity. But as far as cases go, Stephens v. Miller is not canonical. One could even say the case is non-exceptional, at least insofar as any sexual assault case can be described as non-exceptional.

Language: en