Court Opinion

ID: 9499966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 18:09:06.110677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:51.632580
License: Public Domain

SUTTON, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in full in the plurality opinion.
I write separately to say two things. First, Judges Moore, Clay and Griffin offer three additional reasons for denying the writ, all of which make sense to me: (1) Gagne’s proffered evidence is not as probative as he submits once it is stripped of the forbidden inference that a woman who consents once to group sex is more likely to consent to it in the future; (2) the State’s interests in its rape shield laws remain strong even after a trial court admits some evidence of the victim’s past sexual practices; and (3) Crane and Chambers do not demand a contrary conclusion because the State’s interest in its evidentiary rule was either nonexistent (Crane) or weak given the reliability and relevance of the evidence (Chambers ).
Second, the combination of AEDPA and Lucas precludes me from joining Judge Kethledge’s otherwise-forceful dissenting opinion.