Shaw v. U.S.

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Cuni

    159 N.J. 584 (N.J. 1999)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that, under Lucas, the court should not preclude evidence under the rape shield law for procedural non-compliance "if the court finds that under the facts of the specific case preclusion violates the defendant's right to confront witnesses"

    Any evidential connection between T.O.'s prior sexual experiences and the current sexual encounter with defendant is remote and attenuated. Shaw v. United States, 892 F. Supp. 1265, 1275-78 (S.D. 1995) (rejecting evidence that victim engaged in sex acts five or six years before charged crime as too remote and lacking probative worth), aff'd, 92 F.3d 1189 (8th Cir. 1996). T.O.'s prior sexual experiences cannot be viewed as relevant to her capacity to consent or to withhold or refuse consent.

  2. United States v. Counts

    Case No. 3:18-cr-00141 (D.N.D. Feb. 7, 2020)

    That makes this case more akin to Shaw v. United States, where a district court determined that exclusion of evidence pertaining to a victim's sexual contact with other minors was warranted because the "sexual behavior was . . . very much in dispute." 892 F. Supp. 1265, 1274 (S.D. Iowa 1995). Explicitly distinguishing Bear Stops, the district court stated that "the potential for jury confusion and for a distracting 'mini-trial' and/or 'fishing expedition' into these incidents was substantial."

  3. U.S. v. Tail

    CR. 04-50026-01-KES (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2005)

    Moreover, this evidence is not admissible to establish the source of M.H.'s sexual knowledge because nothing suggests, nor does the government intend to introduce evidence suggesting, that she had sexual knowledge beyond her years. See Shaw v. United States, 892 F. Supp. 1265, 1276 (D.S.D. 1995), aff'd, 92 F.3d 1189 (8th Cir. 1996) (barring evidence when victim did not exhibit sexual knowledge beyond her years). Further, Tail fails to show how this evidence suggests that M.H. is biased or motivated to lie.

  4. Stead v. U.S.

    67 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (D.S.D. 1999)   Cited 11 times

    This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result was reliable.Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also, Smith v. United States, 182 F.3d 1023, 1025 (8th Cir. 1999); Shaw v. United States, 892 F. Supp. 1265, 1270 (D.S.D. 1995), aff'd., 92 F.3d 1189 (8th Cir. 1996). A defendant must make a showing of both deficient performance and prejudice in order to obtain ยง 2255 relief based on ineffective assistance.

  5. U.S. v. Tapio

    991 F. Supp. 1144 (D.S.D. 1998)   Cited 2 times
    Finding satisfaction of the nature of petitioner's claims, though the prisoner's affidavit did not state the nature of the action being sought, where the "in forma pauperis declaration included as part of [a prisoner's] model motion"

    This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-700, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also, Willis v. United States, 87 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 1996); Shaw v. United States, 892 F. Supp. 1265, 1270 (S.D. 1995), aff'd, 92 F.3d 1189 (8th Cir. 1996). The defendant must make a showing of both deficient performance and prejudice in order to obtain habeas relief based on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.