## Facts

- The United States charged Dewayne Stamper with statutory rape of a 12-year-old girl.
- The prosecution’s proof depended almost entirely on the complainant’s testimony; there was no meaningful corroborating physical evidence.
- Before trial, Stamper moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 to admit evidence that the complainant previously accused three other males (including relatives/household associates) of sexual abuse and later recanted, and to use related medical and psychological materials.
- The defense theory was that the complainant used fabricated sexual-abuse allegations to manipulate adult authority figures and control her living arrangements.
- The court appointed independent counsel for the complainant to protect privacy interests and conducted an in camera evidentiary hearing on admissibility.
- The in camera hearing evidence indicated the prior accusations led to charges that were dropped after an admission of lying, though the complainant later again asserted the accusations were true.
- The alleged incidents involving Stamper arose after the complainant’s father threatened punishment for misconduct; after accusing Stamper, she moved back to her mother’s household.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 412 barred evidence that the complainant previously made false sexual-abuse accusations against others when offered to show motive, plan, and credibility rather than sexual behavior or predisposition.
2. Whether, given the centrality of the complainant’s testimony, exclusion of such evidence would materially impair the defendant’s ability to confront the accuser and present a defense.
3. What limits and procedures were appropriate for admitting testimony and related medical/psychological material while protecting the complainant’s privacy.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion in substantial part.
- It held that evidence of the complainant’s prior accusations, to the extent offered to show fabrication, motive, and plan, was not barred by Rule 412 and could be used for impeachment.
- It permitted cross-examination of the complainant and other witnesses regarding the prior allegations and allowed certain extrinsic evidence concerning them.
- It allowed limited use of information from medical and psychological reports, reserving some determinations for trial depending on context and scope.
- It used protective procedures (in camera hearing and independent counsel) to mitigate privacy harms while allowing relevant impeachment evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 412 bars evidence offered to prove an alleged victim’s other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition, but it does not exclude evidence offered for non-propensity purposes unrelated to sexual behavior as such.
- Prior false accusations of sexual misconduct may be treated as credibility-related conduct (impeachment/bias/motive/plan) rather than “past sexual behavior” within Rule 412’s scope.
- When the complainant’s testimony is the primary evidence of guilt, impeachment evidence bearing directly on credibility and motive can be sufficiently probative that exclusion would risk denying confrontation and a meaningful opportunity to present a defense.
- Courts may admit such evidence with controls—limited purpose, tailored questioning, in camera review, and other protective measures—to reduce unnecessary intrusion into privacy.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Rule 412 did not bar admitting evidence that the complainant had previously made false sexual-abuse accusations when the defense offered it to show a pattern of fabrication, motive, and plan, and when the complainant’s credibility was central to a largely uncorroborated prosecution case.


United States v. Stamper, 766 F. Supp. 1396 (W.D.N.C. 1991)