Thread by @WomensLawProj

We are pleased to share this GOOD NEWS out of the PA Supreme Court with you: PA Rape Shield Law prevents defendants from submitting evidence of a victim's engagement w/ prostitution as evidence of consent womenslawproject.org/2021/05/19/vic…

In the case, Commonwealth of PA vs. Eric Rogers, the PA Supreme Court considered an appeal filed by a man convicted of multiple violent sexual assaults against women & children in West Philadelphia in 2011-2012

In his appeal, Rogers claimed that he was treated unfairly bc he was not allowed to submit evidence of prior prostitution convictions of two adult victims to support his defense of “financially-induced consent"

The Court rejected this argument: “The proofs offered by Appellant are the very types of items that the Rape Shield Law is designed to preclude... "

"They would cast aspersions upon the moral character of the complainants and do little to prove consent at the relevant time—even if the victims had engaged in prostitution on other occasions.”

“Engaging in commercial sex with other persons, whether by choice or not, has no relevance to the veracity of a rape allegation by another person,” says Terry L. Fromson, WLP managing attorney and co-author of our amicus brief

“To declare otherwise is simply an attempt to eliminate consequences for sexual violence against certain people—namely low-income women and Black women, because Black women are more likely to be arrested for prostitution than white women" - WLP's Terry L. Fromson

“Early American rape law, like the criminal legal system at large, was explicitly rooted in white supremacy & sexism. We still have a long way to go, but this ruling is one more step toward equity in this system for the people we serve who choose to rely on it" - Amal Bass

You can read the majority ruling in PA v. Rogers here law.justia.com/cases/pennsylv…

And you can read the amicus brief we authored & filed w/ @AEquitasResourc here womenslawproject.org/wp-content/upl…