Evidence: Rape Shield Rule

Reviewed by Meghan Black, Esq., Adjunct Instructor, Point Park University on 9/14/19

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

The chapter provides a concise overview of the Rape Shield Rule, contained in Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rape Shield Rule is aimed at preventing the admission of evidence concerning the sexual predisposition and behavior of an alleged victim of sexual misconduct, subject to certain exceptions, and thus, has significant implications for both civil and criminal practice. The text provides a good discussion of the various elements of the Rule and importantly, provides detailed discussion of relevant caselaw to illustrate examples of the form and function of the Rule.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The text provides accurate information regarding the purpose and content of Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The author anticipated certain stylistic changes to Rule 412 that were scheduled to occur after the publication of the text and provided a helpful before-and-after comparison of the language of the text.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

Content in the text is up-to-date and the subject matter is such that supplementing the text with relevant caselaw updates would be straightforward and relatively easy.

Clarity rating: 5

The text provides a detailed summary of the Rape Shield Rule. Prose is concise and clear with additional explanation for context where necessary. The author jumps right into the topic with relevant, but limited, background explanation of legal proceedings. This does not detract from the text, but rather underscores its intended purpose as a practical guide about a specific rule of evidence for law students and legal practitioners. A reader would likely be drawn to this text because he or she already has some knowledge of the topic and desires a more in-depth review or clarification.

That being said, the text could be a valuable resource for an instructor teaching teaching an undergraduate level criminal justice, evidence, or legal process course. The author provides hypothetical case examples to illustrate aspects of the Rule and provides citations to pertinent caselaw. An instructor could use those materials to create engaging discussion board forums, journal questions, or other assessments for students. One suggestion would be to add a brief section after each hypothetical example that answers the question posed in the hypothetical and explains the referenced court case. Given the online format of the text, perhaps it could be a hyperlink to an index of answers to the hypotheticals at the end of the text.

Consistency rating: 5

The author maintains the framework and format throughout, discussing each subsection of the Rape Shield Rule in order and in comparable depth.

Modularity rating: 5

The text is broken into distinct reading sections. In addition to a section on the origins of the Rape Shield Rule, there is a section of the text devoted to a discussion of each subsection of the Rape Shield Rule in order. Depending on the intended use, sections could easily be broken out and developed into more focused lessons or discussions by having students read caselaw and discuss fact patterns. For example, an instructor could easily focus on one section for comparison to some aspect of another rule of evidence also being covered in the course. Similarly, since the author provides hypothetical examples to illustrate aspects of the Rule and provides citations to pertinent caselaw, instructors could easily create discussion board forums, journal questions, or other assessments if desired.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The topics are presented in a logical, orderly and clear manner in the text. The author provides a brief history of the Rape Shield Rule and then dissects each subsection of the Rape Shield Rule in order and in comparable depth. Hypothetical examples and relevant caselaw are presented in context at the time the topic is being discussed, as opposed to a collection at the end of the text, which allows the reader to consider the material and the example at the same time and in the same place in the text. I would consider adding a brief section after each hypothetical example that answers the question posed in the hypothetical and explains the referenced court case. Given the online format of the text, perhaps it could be a hyperlink to an index of answers to the hypotheticals at the end of the text.

Interface rating: 5

There were no issues with navigating the text or viewing any portion of the display. Side by side comparison charts within the prose were not distorted. Hyperlinks to web resources functioned without issue (I did not check every link, but randomly selected several from each category to try—case law citations, law review articles, and law professor blog sites).

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The prose is clear, concise and free of spelling and grammatical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The text is objective, neutral and sensitive in tone. Where explicit or insensitive language is included, it is in the context of a quote from a case or an article that is relevant to the discussion (i.e. the use of the word “bitch” references a case where a party is seeking to present evidence of the other party’s use of explicit language in order to persuade the court to pierce the Rape Shield Rule).

Comments

As a criminal prosecutor for almost 20 years, I found this text to be valuable resource. It was accurate, well-organized and detailed, with essential information about a specific topic that is very relevant to my particular area of practice. As an adjunct professor in the field of criminal law, criminal justice and legal studies, I found myself considering ways to use the materials in my coursework, either in whole or in part. This book has the potential to be a very helpful resource, depending on the particular needs and interests of the reader. Having hyperlinks to resources and materials in the text is a great feature. I would suggest adding a brief section after each hypothetical example that answers the question posed in the hypothetical and explains the referenced court case. Given the online format of the text, perhaps it could be a hyperlink to an index of answers to the hypotheticals at the end of the text.

Reviewed by Maria Kozlowski-Gibson, PhD, MSN, LL.M / Associate Professor, Cleveland State University on 1/12/15

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

Succinct but comprehensive. Direct to the point; present the rape shield rule in practice. The old and new text of law are presented side-by-side for easy reference. Statements are well supported with cases of law.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

No inaccuracies were noticed.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

This book is a valuable source of information, which will continue relevant for years to come.

Clarity rating: 5

The text is clear; presents a synthesized and coherent explanation of a critical topic. The author made the law easy to understand. A resource to provoke critical analysis of the text of law and its evolution.

Consistency rating: 5

The terminology is consistent and the text of law sets the framework of the book.

Modularity rating: 5

This book stands as a legal hermeneutic of the rape shield law. Reading this book promotes the reader's critical and analytical thinking through its expositions and case studies. The text can, easily, be separated in modules for classroom discussion.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The material in this book is well organized, clear, and has a good flow.

Interface rating: 5

The navigation works well. However, the reader should keep track of the page number being read before following a link because going back to the book will bring the reader to the beginning of the book.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

No grammatical errors were noticed.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The content was presented in a culturally unbiased way.

Comments

Best compendium on rape law shield. In addition, this book could be an excellent resource for interdisciplinary education at master level, such as in forensic nursing programs.