## Facts

- Jessie L. Redmond, a counselor at a residential institution for minors with drug and alcohol abuse issues, was convicted in Wisconsin state court of statutory rape of a 15-year-old resident, Heather.
- The prosecution’s case relied principally on Heather’s testimony that Redmond traded cocaine for sex and on testimony from another resident, Michelle, who repeated what Heather said.
- Evidence showed Heather tested positive for cocaine after the alleged incident, but she had a history of cocaine use and could have obtained it from another source.
- About eleven months before the charged offense, Heather reported to her mother, a nurse, and a police officer that she had been forcibly raped and produced torn clothing as purported evidence.
- Heather later admitted she fabricated the forcible-rape accusation and tore the clothing herself to get her mother’s attention; she then claimed the sex had been consensual.
- Redmond obtained numerous police reports from the earlier investigation that supported the falsity of the prior accusation, and contempt charges had been initiated against Heather.
- At trial, Redmond sought to cross-examine Heather about the prior fabricated rape allegation to show a motive to lie about sexual assault for attention.
- The trial court barred that cross-examination under Wisconsin’s rape-shield statute, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed.
- After state appellate review, Redmond filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief, and Redmond appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding cross-examination about a complainant’s prior fabricated rape allegation violated the Sixth Amendment right to confront and impeach a key prosecution witness.
2. Whether the state courts’ ruling, justified under rape-shield principles, was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court Confrontation Clause precedent under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
3. Whether the exclusion was harmless given the prosecution’s reliance on the complainant’s credibility.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of habeas relief and granted the writ.
- The court held that barring any cross-examination on Heather’s prior fabricated rape accusation violated Redmond’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
- The court held that the state courts unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law governing limits on cross-examination, as required for relief under § 2254(d)(1).
- The court concluded the error was not harmless because the case depended almost entirely on Heather’s credibility.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause requires a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine a key prosecution witness on bias, motive, or reasons to fabricate, especially where credibility is central to guilt.
- A state evidentiary rule, including a rape-shield statute, cannot be applied to bar cross-examination that is necessary to expose a witness’s motive to lie.
- Evidence that a complainant previously made a demonstrably false accusation of sexual assault is probative of credibility and potential motive to fabricate and is distinct from evidence of sexual history offered to suggest promiscuity or consent.
- On federal habeas review, relief is available when a state court’s restriction on cross-examination is an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court Confrontation Clause precedent under § 2254(d)(1).
- Where the prosecution’s case rests largely on the complainant’s testimony, excluding highly probative impeachment of that complainant’s credibility can have a substantial effect on the verdict and cannot be treated as harmless.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit granted federal habeas relief because the state courts’ rape-shield-based exclusion of cross-examination about the complainant’s prior fabricated rape accusation unreasonably conflicted with clearly established Confrontation Clause doctrine, and the restriction was prejudicial in a credibility-driven prosecution.


Redmond v. Kingston, 240 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2001)