## Facts

- J.W. sued the City of Oxnard and Oxnard police officer Martin Polo, alleging that Polo raped her.
- During her deposition, J.W. testified that, in the two days after the alleged rape, she had sex with—or said she was raped by—approximately eight men.
- Polo sought to introduce evidence of J.W.’s post-incident sexual activity to challenge her credibility.
- Polo also sought to introduce physical evidence concerning the underwear J.W. was wearing, which testing indicated contained semen from up to five men.
- The semen detected on the underwear could not be definitively connected to Polo.
- At an evidentiary hearing, the parties agreed to stipulate that no physical evidence on the underwear could be linked to Polo.
- The City and Polo otherwise sought to present the proffered sexual-history and semen-source details beyond the stipulation, while J.W. sought to restrict that material.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 and Rules 401–403, the defense could introduce evidence of J.W.’s sexual activity with multiple men in the two days after the alleged rape to attack her credibility.
2. Whether the defense could introduce detailed semen-source testimony (multiple contributors and no definitive match to Polo), or whether a stipulation that the underwear evidence did not link Polo was an adequate substitute under Rules 401–403 and Rule 412.

## Decision

- The court accepted the parties’ stipulation that no physical evidence from the underwear could be linked to Polo.
- The court limited the presentation of semen-source evidence so the jury would receive the non-linkage point without unnecessary detail about multiple contributors.
- The court limited evidence of J.W.’s post-incident sexual activity, treating it as sexual-behavior evidence subject to Rule 412 and excluding it except to the extent a narrow, non-propensity use was shown and the evidence survived Rule 403 balancing.
- The ruling addressed admissibility of evidence for trial and did not decide the merits of J.W.’s civil claims.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 412 generally bars evidence offered to prove that an alleged sexual-assault victim engaged in other sexual behavior or has a sexual predisposition.
- In civil cases, Rule 412 permits such evidence only if its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to the alleged victim and of unfair prejudice to any party.
- Even when evidence has some relevance, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 allows exclusion when the probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, undue delay, or cumulative proof.
- Courts may rely on stipulations to allow a party to communicate a legitimate evidentiary point (such as “no physical evidence ties the defendant to the underwear”) while reducing the risk that sexual-history evidence will be used for improper character inferences.
- Forensic evidence about biological material from multiple unknown contributors may be restricted when it adds little beyond an agreed non-identification fact and risks distracting the jury with sexual-conduct implications.

## Conclusion

J.W. v. City of Oxnard concerns a pretrial evidentiary dispute in a civil rape case in which the court applied Rules 412 and 403 to restrict proof about the plaintiff’s post-incident sexual activity and detailed semen-source findings, while permitting the parties to proceed with a stipulation that the underwear evidence did not link Officer Polo to the alleged rape.


J.W. v. City of Oxnard, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91366 (2008)