Write a 10–12-page paper that addresses all of the following questions: Question 1 Discuss the relevance of the Rape Shield Law and Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 412 in the case of Summitt v. State...

7
Answer One
For the greater part of the history of this country, defense attorneys in cases of rape and sexual assault used to parade the sexual partners of the alleged victim into court to essentially prove that she had a propensity to consent to sexual intercourse and that at the time of the alleged rape or sexual assault, she acted in accordance with this propensity and thus consented. Or more generally, this evidence was used by defense attorneys to prove that the alleged victim was a liar. In 2009, the Judicial Conference of the United States Courts' Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure decided to "restyle" the Federal Rules of Evidence. In this project, the goal was to make the rules more user-friendly rather than making substantive changes.
Summitt v. State Supreme Court of Nevada 1985 is exemplary in terms of revoking the district court’s decision in terms of determining the degree of truth and the chastity of a man’s character which is legally perceived as valid. The Supreme Court took notice of the appellant’s stance of sexual assault but it put to motion the same thing i.e. the assault under the Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) and Rape Shield Law as understood and adhered by Nevada state government. Summative assessment of the whole case indicts towards motions like Summitt tried to provide evidence of the victim's previous sexual experience at the jury trial, including masturbation, fellatio and the fondling of the genitals of the victim. The previous attack had occurred in the same trailer park two years before the crime in question, involving the same victim and her nine-year-old girlfriend, who was also a witness in the present case. The testimony was given by Summitt to demonstrate that the young victim had previous independent knowledge of similar activities, which formed the basis of the present charge.
The stance of the court is projected under the fact that in 1977, in a rape or sexual harassment case, Nevada joined forty-five states and the federal government in passing a "rape shield" law, preventing research into a complaining witness's sexual background. The point here is mentioned as the ‘knowledge’ of the behavior of the assaulter, who could be aware of the fact that the victim had that experience with him and there was nothing ‘new’ tried out on him. The nature of crime, molestation of fondling with genitals is more likely an act of acquaintance but the court denied to accept this reason and stood in favor of the victim.
Based on the above factors, it can be inferred here that the average juror would consider the average twelve-year-old girl to be a sexually innocent girl. Therefore it is possible that jurors would conclude that in connection with the event being investigated, the sexual encounter she describes must have occurred; otherwise, she could not have described it. However, if there were other sexual encounters of statutory rape victims, it might be possible for them to offer detailed, factual evidence about an event that may never have occurred. It would be an apparent mistake to prohibit a defendant from presenting such evidence to the jury if it is otherwise admissible.
A defendant must also be given the opportunity to demonstrate, by concrete incidents of sexual behavior, that the prosecutor has the expertise and capacity to bring a statutory rape charge against him. Thus, the Rape Shield Law, as adopted by Nevada and other states, has some grievances to address which are applicable to the given case. The line of distinction is drawn between the truthfulness of the personality of the defendant and the knowledge of the victim about the sexual behavior including the consent of the victim while the ‘act of sexual instinct’ was performed.
Answer Two
    Evidence of habit and regular practise is also necessary to prove that an individual or organisation has behaved in a manner consistent with that habit or practise on a particular occasion. A variety of approaches have been taken by US courts to the admissibility of such evidence. Some cases, many of them recent, indicate that on the same terms as other applicable proof, evidence of habit and regular activity is admissible. A few instances indicate that the admissibility of proof of habit falls within the discretion of the trial court. Other cases also hold that proof of habit or general practise is not admissible on a particular occasion as evidence of conduct and compliance with that habit. 5 However, Illinois courts more frequently restrict the admissibility of such evidence through a number of arcane and archaic laws.
    Evidence of normal practice has historically been admissible to establish that the practice was followed on a specific occasion only if corroborating evidence indicates that the practice was actually followed on that occasion. In wrongful death and personal injury...