John Michael Hughes v. Robert Raines

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the limitation on cross-examination regarding the victim’s alleged prior false accusation of rape did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the defendant sought to make a general attack on the victim’s credibility
• holding that simple denial and non-prosecution for rape would not suffice to prove falsity
• recognizing that the trial court’s exclusion of a generalized attack on the witnesses’ credibility, particularly her sexual exploits, did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation due to its minimal relevance
• recognizing that the trial court’s exclusion of a general- ized attack on the witnesses’ credibility, particularly her sex- ual exploits, did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation due to its minimal relevance
• holding that the limitation on cross- examination regarding the victim’s alleged prior false accusation of rape did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the defendant sought to make a general attack on the victim’s credibility
• suggesting that standard is whether “jury reasonably could conclude that the prior charge was false”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).