Sex Crimes and Double Standards

 I’ve been practicing law just long enough to know that I will never make sense of it all. It’s not that I am stupid, although my shortcomings are certainly an issue. The larger truth is that the law is irrational. It bumps, grinds and gyrates in ways that simply make no sense.

 This is especially true in criminal cases alleging sexual misconduct.

 Suppose a man is accused of rape. He is, of course, presumed innocent, but the details of his arrest are made public. In the eyes of many, he is condemned by mere accusation. We know the shaming power of a public accusation. Indeed, we know how devastating it is to be an accuser. Hence, in court proceedings, the alleged victim is accorded every courtesy: her name is kept from public view. Even if she testifies, the court engages in elaborate choreography to make sure her name is never mentioned aloud.

 Why isn’t the accused accorded the same courtesy? He is presumed innocent, right?

 But things often get worse.

 There is a general rule against propensity evidence in the law. You can’t show that a person is likely to have committed a crime by demonstrating that he has committed all sorts of other bad acts. A person stands trial for the offense charged. His character is not at issue.

 There are exceptions to this rule, of course, as there are to almost every other rule of law. The state can offer evidence of other acts to show intent, motive, absence of mistake, and all sorts of other factors. But in general, the rule against propensity evidence is strictly enforced

 Except, you guessed it, in sexual assault cases.

 Our state Supreme Court has ruled that these cases get special treatment. The rule prohibiting the admissibility of propensity evidence is relaxed. Why? Sex is different. According to the Supreme Court, sex acts are often compulsive in character – a curious, almost Freudian, sort of admission on the part of the court –  and sex crimes are almost always secretive. It is comparatively easy for the state to offer evidence of other allegations of sexual misconduct, whether resulting in criminal charges or not, but only against a defendant.

 Such evidence is often fatal. It’s one thing to assert that you were struck by lightning as you walked the golf course and don’t know why you were zapped. But if you are struck repeatedly as you walk those greens, folks will start to wonder just what you’ve got in your hand. In sex cases, the offending instrument is rarely an umbrella.

 So let me see if I get it. Sex acts are furtive, compulsive and require special treatment to determine just what happened. Okay. Then how about even-handed application of that rule? Let’s inquire about the accuser, shall we?

 Try shining the same light on an accuser, and you’ll stub your toes on the rape shield statute. That law makes it all but impossible to bring to a jury’s attention an accuser’s sexual history. Why? Such information might be “prejudicial.” But I thought prior acts might be probative in sex cases? 

 Did the complainant come on to the accused? If she denies it, you can’t produceevidence of other licentious acts she committed. The accuser might be a familiar port in many libidinal storms, but she is presented to the jury as a figure as innocent as the Statue of Liberty.

 So the man presumed innocent has his sexual past displayed for the jury, even if that past did not involve the victim at all. His accuser gets a free ride. The jury is kept from knowing details about the accuser, while bathed in all the goo the state can find about the accused. And we telegraph to the jury where our affections lie by treating the victim as so sacred she cannot be named. The accused, of course, is named, and shamed, before the world at large.

 It’s enough to make my head spin. But, then again, I am a lawyer. I’ve been practicing law just long enough to know that I will never make sense of it all.

Comments (1)
Posted on July 29, 2013 at 9:38 am by John Regan
Sex crimes
I think these developments are driven by the fact that prosecutors regularly lose rape cases and are trying to stack the deck higher so that won't happen. They don't have any real insight into why rape cases have become losers, of course. Some of it has to do with jury dynamics - for example, women jurors are really hard on accusers in rape cases - and some of it has to do with the prosecutor mindset: they're so used to just putting in evidence of poor quality and getting the guilty verdict anyway. To a large extene they don't have to think, and accordingly they don't. Just get another law passed to make it harder for the defense to win. It's sad, but that's how a lot of them think.
For Display:
What is the year?
(Won't be displayed with comment)

Link must be approved, then will show on this page.


About Norm Pattis

Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

Personal Website


Law Firm Website


I believe that the state is a necessary fiction and that failing to combat it is the first step toward tyranny.
– Norm Pattis


Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice about your case. You need a lawyer who understands the context of your life and situation. What are offered here are merely suggested lines of inquiry you may explore with your lawyer.

Pattis Video