“Presumed” innocent, and nobody has argued otherwise. Everyone accused of a crime is entitled to that presumption. That would, by the way, include someone accused of committing perjury and making a false police report.

A ‘fair-minded’ individual would not contort himself into knots trying to pretend that the woman reported being raped ‘in the exact same manner’ twice. You’re really inventing facts here, and I’m not sure why you throw charges of class resentment and sexism at anyone who doesn’t eagerly assume the accuser must have lied twice.

No, wait, you’re right. The word “pattern” was ill-chosen on my part; I didn’t mean to imply that a single demonstrated false rape allegation shouldn’t be admissible. And I don’t think a prior conviction for false rape reporting should be necessary, but I do think real evidence – not just “how could the same person possibly be gang-raped twice in a lifetime?” – should be required.

So I think we actually agree about this.

If you can prove a pattern of false accusations, then I absolutely think that should be admissible in court.

I think you set the bar too high. Even a single demonstrably-false rape allegation should be sufficient impeachment of the complainant’s credibility to be admissible. It should not be necessary to show a ‘pattern’.

Also I don’t think ‘proof’ to a criminal standard should be the standard here, rather, that the defence can show that the allegation is likely to have been false.

But I agree that the bare fact of a past rape allegation is not evidence of falsity

Have you been raped before? Did you report it to police? Is there even one element, out of dozens of possible elements, which the two rapes have in common? If so, then by Toy Soldier’s standards, the more recent rapist must get “reasonable doubt” and can’t be convicted!

If you can prove a pattern of false accusations, then I absolutely think that should be admissible in court. But “she says she’s been raped before, and that makes it reasonable to assume that she’s lying this time” – which is all your current case boils down to – is nonsense.

Which is why the courts have been quite correct in not allowing such testimony in past cases in North Carolina; and I hope they continue that pattern in this case.

The fact that the previous accusation is strikingly similar to the current one makes it relevant. It is certainly possible for a woman to be raped more than once in her life, but it is highly unlikely that a woman would be raped in the exact same manner by two random sets of people ten years apart. Fairminded individuals would find the very apparent similarities in both cases questionable, a reason to be doubtful of their validity. Those desperate to assume every rich, white male is rapist and racist would not.

In this instance, the defendants are legally entitled to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. No one actually has to call the accuser a liar. All that is required is to raise reasonable doubt that the acts occurred. To exclude any evidence along those lines, or to deem it ‘misogynistic’ because it raises such doubt, defeats the purpose of even having a trial.

The notion that women can only be actually raped once in their lives is even more laughable.

If the prior accusation had been false, certainly that would be relevant. The fact that a previous report of rape existed doesn’t make it ‘relevant’. It only raises a ‘great deal of reasonable doubt’ in those desperate to assume that the accuser has to be a liar.

The accusation actually does not have to be proven false because she refused to cooperate. Assuming the accuser continues forward, the defense could easily get it included as it goes to her character. Because rape is not part of the “sexual behavior” of the accuser, the rape shield law might not actually protect it, nor should it. The implication from the previous accusation is clear, and that is all the defense attorneys have to present in front of the jury. They do not have to question the accuser about her reasons for not continuing forward or why she waited so long to report it and apparently did not tell the Duke DA about those accusations. That is the jury’s job, and any reasonable person would see the similarities and question why, if the accusations were true, the accuser a) refused to cooperate with the previous case, and b) appears to have been “raped” in the exact same manner twice.

One does not have to be a misogynist to allow the defendants a fair trial nor does one have to be a misogynist to question the credibility of the accuser. One merely has to follow the law and understand it is the prosecution’s burden to prove the assault happened beyond a reasonable doubt. This past accusation would raise a great deal of reasonable doubt in fairminded individuals.

Anyway, I’m generally opposed to laws which restrict the information available to juries, and to giving judges or legislators the power to decide what is and is not relevant. In the wrong hands (a place power finds itself with alarming frequency), this leads to abominations like Peter McWilliams being forbidden to mention that he was using marijuana for medicinal purposes and that this was explicitly allowed under California law.

If juries can’t be trusted to decide for themselves, based on arguments from the prosecution and defense, which evidence is relevant and which evidence is not, then the jury system is irredeemably flawed. Probably democracy, too.