STATE v. DeLAWDER Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a statutory rape victim about prior sexual conduct to show a specific motive to lie (fear of pregnancy) outweighs the state’s evidentiary rule barring such evidence, as this impeachment is essential to test witness reliability.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a defendant’s constitutional right to confront and impeach a witness by exposing a specific motive to fabricate testimony can override a state’s rape shield-type evidentiary rule that would otherwise bar evidence of a victim’s prior sexual history.
STATE v. DeLAWDER Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Lee Franklin DeLawder was convicted of carnal knowledge of a female under the age of 14. At trial, the defense sought to cross-examine the prosecuting witness about her prior sexual activity. The defense’s stated purpose was not to attack her character or suggest consent, which is not an element of the crime, but to establish a specific motive for her to fabricate the accusation. The defense theory was that the witness believed she was pregnant by another person and, fearing her mother’s reaction, invented the rape allegation against DeLawder to explain her condition. The trial court, applying the general rule that a victim’s chastity is irrelevant in a statutory rape case, severely restricted this line of questioning. The court only permitted inquiry into sexual activity within a few days of the alleged crime, based on medical evidence of recent bruising. This restriction prevented the defense from fully developing its theory that the witness had a specific bias or ulterior motive to lie. After DeLawder’s conviction, the Supreme Court decided Davis v. Alaska. DeLawder was subsequently granted post-conviction relief on the grounds that his confrontation rights were violated, and the State appealed that order.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a trial court’s application of an evidentiary rule prohibiting inquiry into a statutory rape victim’s prior sexual history violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the purpose of the inquiry is to show a specific motive to fabricate the charge?
Yes. The court held that by preventing the defendant from cross-examining the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat n
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a trial court’s application of an evidentiary rule prohibiting inquiry into a statutory rape victim’s prior sexual history violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the purpose of the inquiry is to show a specific motive to fabricate the charge?
Conclusion
This case establishes that a state's evidentiary rules, such as those limiting Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in re
Legal Rule
A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective cross-examination, which includes the right Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repre
Legal Analysis
The court applied the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in *Davis v. Alaska*, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proid
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation can override a state