Document Type


Publication Date



Part I of this Article traces the development of the civil application of Rule 412, the so-called “Rape Shield Rule”. Part II analyzes the inconsistencies within the cases decided under the new civil rule and links those inconsistencies to the language of the rule. It identifies the trends within the cases about what constitutes probative value for purposes of the rule and how courts assess prejudice. The Article concludes that rules of evidence designed to remedy bias of fact finders should not be cast as discretionary. Many of the problems that arise in the interpretation of Rule 412 could be solved, if the civil application of Rule 412 were as specific and nondiscretionary as the criminal rule. Therefore, in Part III, the Article proposes a rule designed to offer such specificity.

Publication Citation

51 Emory L.J. 559-586 (2002)